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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: access scope ('owns or co-authors'), a cost note ('Free'), an auth prerequisite (free StartupHub.ai account), and the 'building' → 'done' status lifecycle that implies polling.

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?

Two sentences, with the core action and returned fields front-loaded and the 'when to use' guidance second. The opening clause is slightly dense with returned-field enumeration, but every element earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (sections, companies with profile links, image_url, editor_url, public_url). Combined with the auth/cost note and status polling guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100% and the single map_id parameter is documented with its provenance (from create_market_map or the ?map= value of a link). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Show a saved market map') and enumerates its contents: sections, every company with profile link, PNG image_url, editor_url and public_url. It is clearly distinguishable from the mutating siblings create_market_map and edit_market_map.

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 says when to use it: to reopen a map before editing it with edit_market_map, and to poll a map whose status is 'building' until it is 'done'. The alternative sibling is named along with the condition that selects it.

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