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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that this surfaces conceptual content (pending vs published) rather than performing actions, but does not state that the payload is static/configuration data, and the output schema handles return details.

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 sentence with the action directive ("Start here") front-loaded and the content topics following immediately. No filler or repetition of the name or title.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotation-covered safety, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: when to use it and what it returns. The one small gap is that it does not help the agent choose between this and get_agent_guidance.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are needed here.

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 conveys a specific retrieval purpose and enumerates the content served (canonical endpoint, map ID, and the pending-proposal vs publishing distinction), which is clear enough for an agent to know what it gets back. It stops short of differentiating itself from the similarly-oriented sibling get_agent_guidance, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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?

"Start here" is an explicit, actionable usage directive that tells the agent this is the onboarding entry point. It gives clear positive guidance but names no alternatives or when-not conditions, so no routing to get_agent_guidance or other intro tools is provided.

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