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

Goes far beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool is metered against a daily allowance and per-key limited, that it is metadata-only and never reads rows or runs anything in external systems, and that it will not invent elements. It also describes return semantics the annotations cannot carry — citations are reusable ids, cited routes carry measured verified_rate, unmeasured_joins flags never-measured joins, and doc:<page> citations answer Maplith questions. No contradiction with readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false.

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-loaded with purpose then routing rule, and the dense middle section is all substantive disclosure rather than filler. It is long, and the trailing "Grounding fields: maplith://docs/mcp" line reads as a dangling pointer with no explained use, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs for a metered, read-only Q&A tool with no output schema: what input it takes, what the answer will draw on, how citations can be chained into fetch/get_object/route, how to detect unmeasured joins, and what the tool refuses to do. No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the response's citation structure explicitly.

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% for the single `question` parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by scoping what a question may be about ("what your key may see: objects, fields, relations and join keys, findings, a bounded page of open signals, processes, metrics and tracked values") and by advising "keep questions specific." The length cap it mentions (<1,000 characters) merely restates the schema's maxLength.

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+resource ("Ask the map one question in plain language") and immediately states the return shape ("an answer with its sources"). It distinguishes itself from five named sibling tools in the very next sentence, so an agent can tell what this does and what it is not without opening the 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 when to choose this tool ("a question spans several parts of the map or you do not yet know which tool holds the answer") and names the faster direct alternative for each known case: get_object, route, get_metric, list_findings, search. The exclusion condition ("For one known thing the direct tool is faster and not metered") is stated as a rule, leaving nothing to inference.

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