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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/no-destroy profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that, notably omitting that publish defaults to true (public exposure) and any auth or idempotency behavior — meaningful for a creation tool.

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 clauses, both front-loaded with the differentiator first and the routing hint second. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 14-parameter creation tool with 0% schema coverage the description leaves most parameters and the publish-by-default side effect undisclosed. It is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 0% across 14 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: only map_id's omission rule is explained. Required fields (x, y, title, summary, content) and impactful defaults (publish, min/max_zoom, idempotency_key, region_id) get no semantic elaboration.

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 ('Create a topic') plus the distinguishing scope ('at exact coordinates'), which cleanly separates it from add_map_content's automatic placement. An agent can tell the two siblings apart without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (add_map_content) and the condition that selects it ('for automatic placement'), and gives a conditional usage rule for map_id. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (permissions, whether a map must already exist), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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