Import a real street from an address

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the two-step flow, disambiguation with lettered candidates, and that lat/lng skips geocoding. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., address not found) or the output format, which would improve transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then requirements, then the disambiguation process. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy.

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?

Despite covering the input and flow well, the description does not specify the output of the tool (e.g., image, data model). Since there is no output schema, this omission reduces completeness. The style parameter defaults are in the schema but not summarized.

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 coverage is high (88%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the special role of lat/lng in the disambiguation flow and emphasizing completeness of address parameters. Style parameters are not mentioned but are covered in schema descriptions.

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 renders a real street cross-section by reading from OpenStreetMap, specifying the required complete address. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing the unique two-step process involving address input and optional lat/lng for disambiguation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (complete address required) and when to ask the user for missing parts or present candidates. It explains the disambiguation flow but does not compare this tool to its siblings (build_share_url, render_street), reducing its helpfulness for alternative selection.

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