OpenLandMap MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing behavioral traits: it describes the return format ('AssetInfo dict with url, type, roles, is_cog, s3_bucket, s3_key') and implies read-only behavior through 'resolve' and 'returns'. It could improve by mentioning rate limits or authentication needs, but it covers key output behavior adequately.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by return details, args, returns, and an example. Each section earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains purpose, parameters, and return values in detail. It could slightly improve by mentioning error cases or prerequisites, but it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's purpose ('Collection identifier', 'Item identifier', 'Asset key within the item') and providing an example with concrete values, which clarifies usage and format expectations effectively.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('resolve', 'returns') and resources ('full URL and metadata for a specific asset'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_asset_download_info' or 'list_assets_for_item' by focusing on resolving a single asset's URL and metadata rather than listing or downloading.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by specifying it's for 'a specific asset' and 'programmatic access', which helps differentiate from visualization or listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_asset_download_info' for download-related needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.