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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it matches both map titles and every contained region name, and it controls result ordering (free maps first) and return content (matched regions). It stops short of describing pagination behavior or what an empty result looks like.

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, no waste: the capability leads, followed by matching and return semantics. The example list is compact and directly disambiguates what counts as a valid query.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what comes back (matching maps plus the regions that matched, free first). It is only slightly short of complete because result capping via limit and no-match behavior are 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 50%: query is documented in the schema and further illustrated by the description's examples ("Texas", "Japan", "Cook County"), which adds real value. The limit parameter is never mentioned, so its default of 10 and max of 50 are only discoverable from 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 specific verb and resource ("Find maps") plus the search key (place or region name) and enriched examples of valid inputs. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_maps or get_free_map, so an agent must infer that this is the fuzzy-search tool versus the enumeration/fetch tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the examples: use this when you have a place name and want matching maps. There is no explicit when-not clause or pointer to list_maps for browsing, so the agent must reason about which sibling to pick.

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