OpenLandMap MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a search operation (implied read-only), explains what items represent, mentions pagination behavior with limit/offset, and describes the return structure. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, item/asset explanation, parameter documentation with examples, return description, and usage example. Every sentence adds value - no redundant information. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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?

For a search tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of inputs, behavior, and return format. The main gap is the lack of explicit error handling information or authentication requirements. Given the rich parameter documentation and behavioral context, it's nearly complete for agent usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic information for all 5 parameters. Each parameter gets clear explanations with examples: collection_id format, bbox coordinate order and reference system, datetime_range ISO 8601 format with interval examples, limit range and default, and offset purpose for pagination.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('items in a STAC collection'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying spatial and temporal filters. It explains what items represent (temporal snapshots) and their assets, providing domain context that differentiates from tools like 'find_items_by_point' or 'list_items_temporal'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching with spatial and temporal filters) and includes an example. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'find_items_by_point' for point-based queries or 'list_items_temporal' for temporal-only queries).

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