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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations lack: the iframe embed markup is returned only 'when public embedding is enabled', a conditional the agent must know about.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the return contents. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing returns (publication, URL, embed), and annotations cover safety. It omits any error/not-found or non-published-map behavior, but is otherwise sufficient for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

A single mapId parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description says nothing about it, but the parameter name is self-evident and the schema supplies format (uuid) and pattern. Baseline 3 for a lone, clearly-named identifier the description does not enrich.

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 (Get) and a precisely scoped resource (a published interactive map), plus enumerates the payload: active publication, canonical URL, and iframe embed markup. This distinguishes it from the raw geobble_get and geobble_map_view siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scoping word 'published' and the delivery-link framing (URL/embed), which signals this is for consumers needing a shareable/embeddable map. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs geobble_map_view, geobble_map_publication_list, or geobble_map_publication_activate, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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