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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds useful scope context ('full map specification', 'prior version', i.e. historical/immutable), but says nothing about return format or what the specification contains.

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 key scope ('full map specification') and the key qualifier ('prior version') front-loaded. No filler, no repetition of the 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 simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description conveys the essential behavior (reading a historical map specification). It is nearly complete; only an explicit pointer to the history-list sibling and the projectId's role are missing.

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?

Reported schema coverage is 0% at the top level: projectId carries no description and 'input' is undocumented. The description conceptually maps to both ('of a project' -> projectId, 'prior version' -> version) but adds no format or constraint detail. The nested version field is well documented in the schema itself, which partially offsets the gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Read the full map specification of a project ... at a prior version.' An agent can tell this is a historical read of a project's map spec. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling (e.g., geobble_map_view, geobble_project_validate_map) overlaps with the version-history concept.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool named. The phrase 'as it was at a prior version' implies the historical use case, but the crucial guidance ('use the history list to see available versions') lives only in the schema, not the description. An agent gets no routing help here.

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