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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety aspects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action and listing style options already present in the schema. No side effects, scope, or return behavior are disclosed.

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?

Description is a single, well-structured Chinese sentence that front-loads the action and lists all three options. No redundant words or filler.

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 simple setter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It conveys the core function, and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness. Missing context like scope (global vs. local) is not critical but could be clarified.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, fully explaining the 'basemap' enum with Chinese/English mappings. The tool description merely repeats this information, adding no extra meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('切换' = switch) and resource ('底图风格' = basemap style), enumerating the three options. It is distinct from sibling tools like setLayerVisibility or setCameraOptions, which target different scene elements.

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 description: use when wanting to change the basemap style. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, which is acceptable for such a simple tool but lacks explicit context.

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