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

With no annotations available, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It specifies that the backend returns 403 before the meter, so no charge is incurred; both agent and human constraints are named; and it explains the tool is kept only for stable enumeration and will reopen metered if flags change. This fully discloses all relevant runtime behavior an agent needs.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence earns its place given the shutdown state, alternatives, and operational details. The critical 'do NOT call' is front-loaded, and the rest logically follows (why closed, what to use, when it may reopen). It is verbose but not bloated.

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 tool that is deliberately closed to callers, the description is comprehensive. It tells the agent exactly why the tool cannot be called, what the alternatives are, what charging behavior would be, and what the tool did when open. No essential context is missing for an agent to decide correctly not to use this tool and to pick the right sibling.

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 input schema has zero description coverage and the description only mentions 'layers + include_country_centroids' by name. It does not explain what layers values mean (e.g., 'companies'), what include_country_centroids does, or what the defaults imply. Since the description is the only place to convey parameter meaning and it adds almost none, the score stays low.

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 identifies the tool as the bulk map-layers surface and, even more importantly, states its current closed status with an explicit 'CLOSED — do NOT call.' It distinguishes it from map_viewport and look_from by naming those as the bounding-box and pose-based alternatives, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool is and that it should not be used.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and unequivocal: 'do NOT call' and 'USE INSTEAD: map_viewport for a bounding box ... or look_from for a pose.' It also explains why (backend 403, no charge) and when it might reopen (if the flags flip), so the agent knows both the current exclusion and any future condition to revisit.

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