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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the catalogue is static and what each entry contains, including paid items with price and buy link, which is useful context an agent cannot infer. It says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering, which matters for a catalogue endpoint.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then the filters, with no filler. The attribute list is dense but each item earns its place since there is no output schema to describe the returned fields.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well by enumerating the fields per map. The remaining gap is sibling routing rather than tool internals, so an agent can invoke it correctly but may pick the wrong tool among the three.

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%: kind is documented in the schema, access is not. The description compensates for access by naming the free/paid axis and pairs kind with us/country/world, but it adds no meaning beyond the enum values themselves and does not explain the default 'all' behavior or how the two filters combine.

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 resource (catalogue of editable SVG maps) and enumerates the per-map attributes returned (place, unit, region count, labelled/blank, price, URL). An agent knows exactly what it gets. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings find_map and get_free_map, which are close enough in purpose to require explicit differentiation.

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 description mentions the two filters but never says when to call list_maps rather than find_map or get_free_map — a real ambiguity given an overlapping 'free maps' sibling. No exclusions, no prerequisites, no note about whether this is a browse-all vs targeted lookup tool.

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