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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important runtime behavior: for large maps, truncated becomes true and truncated_note indicates counts may be lower bounds. This is valuable context that annotations do not provide and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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, each serving a purpose: the first describes content and usage, the second covers a specific edge-case behavior. Information is front-loaded with the overview, then the truncation note. No 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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what data is returned, when to use it, and how to interpret truncation. It is complete for an orientation 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 has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema is empty and no parameter semantics are 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides an overview of the workspace's data map, enumerating specific content (domains, business objects, relation/finding counts, last built time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_object or list_findings, which are more granular. The 'Call this first' phrase reinforces its role as an entry point.

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 instructs the agent to call this tool first for orientation, giving a clear when-to-use directive. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough that this is a minor gap.

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