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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only one behavioral trait beyond that — that revisions are immutable and one is marked live — with no detail on ordering, pagination, or behavior for a map with no publications.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource and adds the 'live revision' detail without any filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by saying the result includes revisions plus the live indicator. However, it omits return shape details (what a revision record contains, ordering, empty-list behavior) and leaves the sole parameter unexplained, so it is only minimally complete for a 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single mapId parameter, which has only a UUID pattern and no prose. The description implies the scope ('of a map') but never explains that mapId selects the map or what happens if it refers to a non-existent or unpublished map.

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 and resource ('List the immutable publication revisions of a map') and names the distinguishing output ('which revision is live'). This clearly separates it from map_publish and map_publication_activate, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the inspection step before calling map_publication_activate, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or names the alternative tools. No prerequisites or preconditions are given.

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