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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the max 30 s per call, the requested_wait_seconds/max_wait_seconds reporting, the VIEWER_NOT_CONNECTED return while closed, and that it behaves identically for the in-chat map and map_url tab.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and only four sentences, each adding value (timeout, return signal, repeatability, dual-target behavior). Slightly dense with parenthetical detail, but no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and the description still supplies the key polling-loop semantics and the connect/disconnect signal. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained poll_interval_ms parameter.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains wait_seconds (max 30 s per call) and identifies map_session_id's origin, which is substantial, but poll_interval_ms is never mentioned and its units/meaning are left entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: reporting whether the person has the map open for a given map_session_id, and explicitly ties the session id source to get_map_visualization. An agent can distinguish this 'wait for viewer connection' tool from sibling map tools like get_map_visualization and set_map_state.

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?

Gives clear usage context: repeat the same call while the person opens the map, and that results paint live once connected. It references get_map_visualization as the session-id source. However, it does not explicitly exclude or contrast alternatives (e.g., set_map_state, configure_map), so routing guidance is strong but not fully disambiguating.

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