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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it discloses cost ('Cheap; safe to call repeatedly'), that output is condensed in large collections and self-announces this, and that ids are returned as short prefixes usable as-is elsewhere. It does not cover failure modes or error behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core definition and keeps each parameter block focused on a single use case. It is longer than most definitions but nearly every sentence adds routing or behavioral information; the final line about short prefixes is slightly redundant given the earlier mention of ids.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still conveys the shape and variability of the map (inline sections vs. section counts vs. condensed overview). For a two-parameter, zero-required navigation tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 must compensate, and it does: it explains what query should contain ('what you are about to do') with a concrete example, and that document_id takes an id shown in the map to list that document's sections. Both optional parameters' semantics and interaction with the map output are fully specified.

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?

Opens with a concrete metaphor-plus-definition of the resource ('Map of the instruction documents available to you') and specifies exactly what an entry contains. It is clearly distinguishable from get_section (section listing) and search_instructions (rule lookup) without opening either schema.

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 when-to-use ('Call this at the start of a conversation and again whenever the conversation moves to a topic or system you haven't checked guidance for') and names the alternative for the adjacent task ('To find a specific rule, identifier, error code or table, call search_instructions instead') with the reason it is preferable.

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