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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the coordinate-format requirement; it says nothing about ordering, overflow when the place/route caps are hit, or how the new block interacts with existing board content.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action and the content types lead, and the coordinate convention follows. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 write tool with 83% schema coverage and full annotations, the description covers purpose and coordinate format adequately and no output schema exists to explain. It is only short of the top band because it omits any routing versus add_block/draw guidance and says nothing about the practical limits on map size.

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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every field, including labels, notes, and ordering. The description adds the decimal lat/lng convention, which is marginal above what the schema's lat/lng fields already convey, 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Put a map on a Flett board') and enumerates what the map contains (marked places, drawn routes), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like add_block or draw. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top band.

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 only directive is a parameter convention ('Give coordinates as decimal latitude and longitude'); there is no statement of when to choose this tool over add_block, draw, or edit_block, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The examples ('a trip, a set of locations, a region') hint at use cases but do not constitute guidance.

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