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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds that shared maps are included and names the returned identifiers, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how many results come back absent a limit.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and the return fields are appended efficiently. No filler or 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?

For a simple zero-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and the key return identifiers well. The remaining gap is the limit/pagination behavior, which is minor for a read-only listing call.

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?

The single optional parameter 'limit' has no schema description at all (0% coverage) and the description never mentions it, so nothing is added about its meaning or the 1-50 range. With only one parameter and a default listing behavior, the omission is tolerable but leaves the agent relying on the schema's bare constraints.

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 names a specific verb (List) and a clearly bounded resource: the traveler's saved maps plus maps shared with them. That scope implicitly separates it from map_search_places and map_get_state, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as map_get_state for a single map or map_search_places for discovery. An agent must infer the selection rule from the noun phrase alone.

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