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

Adds context well beyond the annotations: nothing is generated, no credits are spent, no sign-in is needed, and it returns settings plus the credits required. That is real behavioral disclosure for a preparation-only tool whose annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) would otherwise leave the agent guessing whether this consumes credits or produces output. It stops short of 5 because the handoff to the actual generation step is only implied.

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 core purpose, then constraints in a logical order (safety, then text-only limitation with a redirect). The single long first sentence and dense semicolon chains make it slightly run-on, but every clause carries usable information.

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 6-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers safety constraints, cost behavior, auth requirements, and an out-of-scope redirect. The remaining gap is the workflow relationship to the sibling generate_media tool for actually producing the map.

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 every parameter (style, format, map_type, model_id, geography, place_names) is already documented in the schema with defaults and enums. The description's restatement of map types and the 'place names you list' behavior adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Prepare a map of an imaginary place with Abracadabrax') with the supported map types enumerated (world, continent, kingdom, island, city, dungeon) and the labeled place names called out. An agent can distinguish this from generate_media without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (tabletop campaign, novel, game) and explicit when-not-to-use: no copyrighted characters, franchises, logos, trademarks or real celebrities, and no uploaded/reference images or videos. It names the alternative for the excluded image case ('point the user to the Abracadabrax workspace'), which is exactly the routing guidance the dimension asks for.

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