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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them. It notes key-scope limitations, that truncated counts may be lower bounds, that relationship checks come from the scan, and that wake-up endpoints/deliveries appear only where wake-ups are on. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with 'Orient yourself' and covers many relevant areas, but it is a dense, run-on block with internal jargon and semicolon-separated clauses. It is information-rich but harder to parse than necessary.

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 carries most of the explanatory burden, and it does list the major overview sections and follow-up paths. Some terms such as 'stated', 'journey', and 'raisers' remain slightly opaque, but the external docs link provides a fallback.

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 imposes no parameter-semantics burden. The description does not need to explain parameter usage, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is appropriately high.

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 that the tool provides an orientation overview of the map: domains, objects, row counts, freshness, quality, key scope, relationships, journey, setup, maintenance, and confidence. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming specific follow-up tools, though the opening 'Orient yourself' is broader than a precise verb+resource phrase.

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 explicitly positions the tool as the orientation step and routes the agent to alternatives: 'route' for a join path, 'get_object' for fields and caveats, and 'ask' for cross-map questions. It also says to use 'journey' to guide the human and mentions 'check_setup' for details, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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