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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world): it discloses the credit cost per call, the ~15 second latency, the async 'building' status semantics, the account requirement, and the equivalent REST endpoint. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking.

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 outcome, return values and polling instructions are front-loaded and every sentence carries operational weight. It is dense and a little run-on in the middle polling sentence, but there is 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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully enumerates the return shape (image_url, editor_url, segments with companies and profile links, map spec JSON, optional public link). Combined with latency, async status and auth requirements, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both params; the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by giving example prompt phrasings ('fintech startups in London', 'AI coding assistants split by use case') and restating the publish:true behavior in terms of a public link.

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 and resource ('Build a startup market map from a plain-language request') and immediately gives concrete example prompts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_market_map, edit_market_map, style_market_map and publish_market_map, which are all referenced or implied as separate steps.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: when status is 'building', follow with get_market_map (map_id) every few seconds until 'done', and explicitly warns NOT to call create_market_map again. It also states the account prerequisite and that the interactive Claude view polls on its own.

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