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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent — this is a pure informational/educational tool with no side effects. The description adds context beyond the annotation by disclosing the guide's content scope and the current catalog baseline (252 entities up to Admin 2, with deeper tiers available for six named countries). This enriches the agent's understanding of what the guide contains without duplicating the annotation.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded ('Call this first') followed by the tool-routing guidance. The catalog statistics and country list are somewhat lengthy, but they are functional — they tell the agent the current data-state of the underlying geography tools, which is genuinely useful content for a starting guide and not wasted words.

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?

Completeness is strong for a guide tool with low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema needed for a textual guide). It covers what the guide contains, when to call it, and where to go next. The embedded catalog status adds situational knowledge an agent benefits from when planning multi-step geography queries.

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 100% — the single optional 'question' parameter is fully documented in the input schema as an optional natural-language query. The description reinforces but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. No compensation is needed since the schema carries the full burden.

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?

Clearly states a specific purpose: 'Free starting guide for the DaedalMap geography/geometry MCP' and enumerates the exact conceptual areas it covers (loc_id, administrative-spine, reference-family, discovery, point-lookup, bounded-shape). It actively differentiates itself from siblings by naming what it is not — the live catalog read and get_tool_help for a single tool — so an agent can tell it apart immediately.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: 'Call this first to learn... Then read the live geometry catalog... and use get_tool_help for one exact tool.' This is textbook guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives, including the follow-up step an agent should take afterward. Nothing is left to inference.

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