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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that every response carries site_ref for chaining and that missing layers, coverage status and warnings are returned — useful for interpreting partial results. It stops short of describing behavior when site resolution is partial/unresolved.

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, purpose first, chaining second — appropriately front-loaded and free of filler. The return-field enumeration is somewhat long and partially duplicates the output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 an 8-parameter tool with zero required parameters and a nested site_ref, the description doesn't explain the input contract — e.g. when address vs. site_ref vs. question is needed. It also spends most of its space restating return values that the output schema already defines, leaving the more consequential input-selection ambiguity unaddressed.

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 75% and the site_ref property carries a detailed inline description, so the structured data does most of the work. The description only reinforces the site_ref chaining rule and adds nothing about `question`, `categories`, `show_only`, or `output`, which remain defined solely by the schema.

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 concrete verb and a well-defined resource: returning structured map actions, evidence layers, citations, coverage status and warnings for a map customization request. An agent can tell this is a planning/orchestration tool rather than a renderer. However it never names or contrasts with sibling tools such as generate_site_map or present_site_research, so the boundary between 'plan' and 'render' must be inferred.

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?

The second sentence establishes a chaining pattern (pass site_ref unchanged into another Atlasly tool), which implies a call sequence but does not say when this tool is preferred over generate_site_map or when to call it standalone vs. as a follow-up. No explicit when-not guidance or prerequisite conditions are given.

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