MapIron Maps

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive annotations, the description discloses the result taxonomy (districts_found, none_found, outside_coverage), the critical caveat that none_found is NOT proof no district applies, and the meaning of near_boundary/nearby for parcels straddling a boundary. It further sets handling rules for null figures, tax-rate inference, and notice requirements, which are exactly the behavioral constraints an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Well front-loaded: coverage, then returned fields, then usage routing, then caveats. Most sentences carry real information, but the trailing fragment "Growth plans and up; counts 1 address lookup." is opaque and does not earn its place, slightly diluting an otherwise tight, if dense, paragraph.

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 annotation coverage of returns, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it lists every returned attribute (name, type, status, counties, tax rate with report year, outstanding debt, website, notice statute) and all three result statuses. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or safely report the output is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter (lat, lon, geometry enum, include_inactive) is documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the point-in-parcel idea for the coordinate pair but never mentions geometry or include_inactive, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas applies.

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 specific verb and resource ("List the Texas special taxing districts that contain a latitude/longitude") and enumerates exactly which district types are covered (MUD, WCID, fresh water supply, levee, PID) plus the source (TCEQ, city publication). It also names sibling tools (geocode, parcel_lookup) that produce the input, so an agent can distinguish it from a plain geocoder without inspecting schemas.

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 routing: "Geocode an address first (geocode tool) or use a point inside the parcel (parcel_lookup)" — a clear when-to-use and how-to-prepare rule naming both alternatives. It also states the scope limit that PID coverage exists only "where cities publish them" and says coverage appears in the answer, so the agent knows the condition under which results are partial.

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

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the metered cost (1 lookup against a monthly cap), data retention terms (30 days on Free, indefinitely on paid), and the required "© OpenStreetMap contributors" attribution. These are billing, privacy and legal obligations an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage routing, then cost/retention/attribution. Every sentence carries operational value; only the attribution sentence borders on boilerplate but it is a real obligation.

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 usefully enumerates the return shape (coordinates, label, address parts). It covers cost and retention but says nothing about multi-result behavior or what happens when no match is found, leaving some ambiguity for a 5-parameter tool with a nested object.

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 coverage is 100%, so bbox, near, lang and limit are fully documented in the schema and the description need not repeat them. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior such as how bbox and near interact with the query, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (look up) plus resource (address, place name, point of interest) and names the concrete return values (lat, lon, readable label, address parts) and data source (OpenStreetMap). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming static_map and privacy_area_map as downstream consumers.

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?

Explicitly says to use it before static_map or privacy_area_map when you only have an address, which is concrete routing guidance. The gap is that reverse_geocode is the obvious inverse sibling and is never mentioned, so the agent gets no cue for choosing between forward and reverse lookup.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses that the call needs no key and burns no quota, but that viewing the map consumes map tiles, and it warns to swap YOUR_KEY for a website-restricted key. Missing only edge details like whether the returned snippet is version-pinned or what the tile_url output looks like exactly.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable, with no filler. The parenthetical library list is dense but earns its place by mapping libraries to output types; a slightly cleaner structure would separate the key/quota caveat from the output description.

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 two-parameter code-generation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the library choices, the placeholder key, and the billing implication. A small gap remains around how the style parameter interacts with the tile_url option and what exactly the snippet contains.

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 coverage is 100% with both enums fully described, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description reinforces the vector-vs-raster distinction ('MapLibre GL JS vector map, Leaflet or OpenLayers raster map') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 deliverable (ready-to-paste HTML/JavaScript or an XYZ tile URL template) and the resource (interactive MapIron map), enumerating the concrete flavors (MapLibre vector, Leaflet/OpenLayers raster). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like static_map or privacy_area_map, which produce images rather than code.

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 clear selection context: use maplibre for a vector map, leaflet/openlayers for raster, and tile_url when the user has 'any other library'. It does not explicitly name sibling tools (e.g. static_map) or state when NOT to request code, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description goes well beyond that: US-only open-data coverage, owner names and values explicitly excluded, boundary lines approximate and not a survey-grade, and data-retention implications on paid plans. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

The purpose and return payload are front-loaded in one dense sentence, which is good. The trailing 'Growth plans and up; counts 1 address lookup' and the storage-retention sentence are billing/plan boilerplate that dilutes the operational content and slightly muddies what the agent should act on.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the returned fields and their units. Coverage limits and disclaimers are present; what is missing is behavior on no-match or ambiguous points and any hint of response shape, which matters for a geospatial lookup.

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 100%, including lat/lon pairing rules, the geometry enum values, and the parcel_id example format, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the two mutually exclusive input modes and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get the property parcel (lot)') and enumerates exactly what comes back: boundary, APN, area in m²/acres, source and date. It also names the two lookup modes (lat/lon or parcel_id). It never contrasts itself with siblings such as reverse_geocode or district_lookup, so it falls short of a 5.

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 through input-mode phrasing ('at a latitude/longitude, or by parcel_id'). Coverage constraints ('US coverage from open government data only', county list pointer) act as a de facto when-not, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing this over reverse_geocode or district_lookup for the same coordinates.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the actual privacy mechanism (grid snapping, no pin, shaded circle guaranteed to contain the true point, identical output per grid cell) and closes the obvious re-identification attack by noting the point cannot be averaged out across listings. It also states the return shape (inline image plus reusable URL containing only the snapped point) and the cost: 'Counts 1 static image against the account's monthly cap.'

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?

The privacy guarantee is front-loaded in the first two sentences, then usage, then return/cost. It is slightly dense in the second sentence, but every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 10-parameter image tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, privacy guarantees, return format, URL behavior, and billing cost. Nothing material is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter including snap_deg and radius_m. The description adds conceptual reinforcement of snapping but no new per-parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific action and effect: render 'roughly where a place is without revealing the exact point', which cleanly separates it from an exact-point static map. It never names the sibling static_map explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast from the privacy framing, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'real-estate, rental and marketplace listings, people's homes, or any location that should stay private.' It does not state the inverse rule (use static_map when the exact point is acceptable), so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics and closed-world scope, yet the description adds genuinely new operational context: it consumes one address lookup against the account's monthly cap, and inherits the same storage/attribution terms as geocode. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g., open ocean / no match) or result format.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then cost, then licensing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy or filler.

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 should say something about what comes back (an address record? multiple candidates when limit > 1? what happens when nothing is found). It also leaves the lang/limit interaction with results unexplained, so an agent knows how to call it but not fully what to expect.

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 100%, so lat, lon, lang, and limit are fully documented in the schema with ranges, defaults, and formats. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Find the nearest address or place to a latitude/longitude') plus the data source (OpenStreetMap). The reverse direction is clear enough to distinguish it from the forward 'geocode' sibling, though the description never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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 'reverse' vs the sibling 'geocode', but there is no explicit 'use this when you have coordinates; use geocode when you have an address' routing statement. The only sibling reference ('Same storage terms and attribution as geocode') is about licensing, not tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: the image is returned inline, a reusable image URL is also produced (requiring the caller's own key), and each call consumes one static image against a monthly cap. It also flags that parcel rendering needs zoom 13+ and a Growth plan tier. A quota cost and the notion of an inline image plus URL are the kind of facts an agent needs and the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler, ordered purpose → usage modes → side effects (URL, quota) → exclusion. The exclusion is placed last where it functions as a guard rather than stealing the lead.

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 12-parameter tool with nested coordinate objects and no output schema, the description covers what comes back (inline image plus URL), the cost model, the tier-gated feature, and the required invocation modes. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: center and zoom form one mode while markers and path trigger automatic view fitting with padding. That interaction meaningfully improves correct invocation beyond the per-field descriptions.

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 specific verb and resource ("Render a map as an image") and immediately names the optional overlays (pins, path). It also names the sibling it is not (privacy_area_map), so an agent can distinguish it from privacy_area_map 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?

Explicitly states two valid invocation modes (center+zoom, or markers/path with auto-fit) and gives a hard exclusion: do not use for a private home address, use privacy_area_map instead. That is a when-to-use, a when-not-to-use, and a named alternative.

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