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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description reinforces this by scoping to 'published' posts. It adds nothing about ranking/scoring of 'similar', pagination, or how results are ordered, which are the behaviors that actually matter here.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded, no filler. The trailing 'for study planning' is slightly ornamental, but nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained (and the field list here is largely redundant with it). However, with five parameters at 0% schema coverage and no guidance on alternatives, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently versus sibling search tools.

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 0% across 5 parameters. The description implies similarity is computed against the required 'title' input but says nothing about how map_id, summary, draft_text, or limit change behavior, leaving four parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('similar published map posts'), and clarifies the similarity is scoped to published content. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_topics or alkemata-search-published-content, which could also surface related content, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states a purpose ('for study planning') but never says when to use this over search_topics or the alkemata search tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer the selection condition from name similarity alone.

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