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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses conditional output behavior — iframe embed markup is only present when public embedding is enabled, and the publication data reflects the active publication — which is genuinely useful and not in any structured field.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the conditional return nuance trailing rather than buried. No 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 one-param read tool with full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient, and it partially substitutes for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields. It falls short only on error/not-found behavior and on how a caller discovers mapId, which siblings like search or get presumably provide.

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%, so the description should compensate, and it never mentions mapId. In practice the single uuid-formatted mapId is self-explanatory and the schema carries its type and pattern, but nothing in the description clarifies which map identifier is expected (e.g. that it must be a published map's id) or what happens for an unpublished or unknown id.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get a published interactive map") plus an enumeration of exactly what is returned: active publication, canonical URL, iframe embed markup. It does not distinguish itself from closely-named siblings like map_view, map_publication_list, or get, which an agent may hesitate between.

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?

The word "published" and the conditional "when public embedding is enabled" imply it applies to already-published maps, and by inference map_publish activates publication. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative, and no guidance on whether map_view or map_publication_list should be preferred for publication details.

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