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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint — that abbreviations like 'TX' are rejected and names must be submitted verbatim — which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not describe the response shape or any rate/limit behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the critical usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one enum parameter, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete — it says what is listed and the strict verbatim requirement. It could have named the supported country values to fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage, which is the only notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a country', mapping loosely to the single parameter, but never explains the allowed enum values (au, ca, uk, us) or the default of 'us'. The enum in the schema carries the real meaning, leaving a clear gap the description should have filled.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the exact region names a scrape accepts for a country'), which is far more concrete than the title alone. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like mapsdata_search_categories or mapsdata_list_scrapes, but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can distinguish it.

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 limited to how to consume the results ('Submit them verbatim', abbreviations rejected). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of the natural pairing with mapsdata_start_scrape. Implied usage only.

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