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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the enumeration of what is returned and the important caveat that "The audio plays in Mappu, not in the chat," which prevents an agent from promising inline audio playback.

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 action and resource, and the two sentences are dense but purposeful. The long return-field inventory is justified because there is no output schema, though it reads as a run-on list rather than structured text.

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 no output schema and only 67% parameter coverage, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming link, city, listening minutes, languages, ordered sections, official website, and related walks. The main remaining gap is locale behavior and any error/not-found handling, which an agent might need before calling.

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 description coverage is 67%; the schema already documents path as "not a URL" and query as a place name, while locale carries only an enum and default. The description restates the name-vs-path lookup modes but adds no format, precedence, or fallback detail (e.g. what happens if both are supplied) beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 gives a specific verb ("Look up"), a specific resource ("a published Mappu audio guide to a landmark or place"), and the two lookup keys (name or exact path). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns. It does not, however, draw any explicit line against sibling tools such as mappu_get_trip_planning_guide or mappu_find_walks, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the resource noun alone.

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?

"by name or by the exact path from an earlier Mappu result" implies the two legitimate invocation modes and their provenance, which is useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. that a path must come from a prior result), and no named alternative for the travel-content retrieval siblings.

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