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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description correctly spends its words on what annotations cannot express: the result is an MCP-UI resource that requires a UI-capable client to render inline, and it discloses the pin payload (verbatim claim, grade, sealed probability, click-through to the full sealed record). It stops short of stating fallback behavior for non-UI clients.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return value before the rendering caveat and the use trigger. The heavy parenthetical and capitalized 'EMBEDDABLE LIVE MAP' / 'JYOTINT theater map' add some marketing bulk, but every sentence still carries information an agent needs.

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 and no parameters, the description must explain the return value, and it does — resource type, renderability requirement, and pin contents. Missing only edge behavior for clients that cannot render mcp-ui resources, which is a minor gap for this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to compensate for; baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description adds nothing parameter-related, but nothing is needed.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Return an EMBEDDABLE LIVE MAP of the sealed-forecast corpus') and clarifies the delivery form (MCP-UI resource), which cleanly separates it from data-returning siblings like search_sealed_forecasts or list_open_calls. An agent can tell what this produces without opening anything else.

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?

Ends with an explicit trigger: 'Use this when a user asks to see, visualize, or explore JYOTINT's forecasts on a map.' That is a clear use condition, but it does not name or exclude alternatives (e.g., when to prefer search_sealed_forecasts or the raw record view instead).

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