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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is settled. The description adds genuinely new context: it is a 'static reference; no project data,' telling the agent the result is independent of project state and safe to call speculatively — a meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 tight sentences: what it does, what it returns, when to call it. The routing instruction is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still sketches the return shape (synonyms, unit, range, direction, serving tool, examples) and states the static nature. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call it 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 0% and the single required parameter, organizationId, is never explained in the description. With only one parameter and a rich output schema, the omission is minor but real; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Map) and resource (plain-language request → Mencoro metric and tool), plus it enumerates the fields returned. This clearly separates it from data-querying siblings such as get_organization_overview or get_cited_sources, which return project data rather than a static mapping.

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 an explicit trigger list: call first when a request is vague, non-technical, in another language, or doesn't match a tool name — which implicitly defines the when-not case. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative (e.g. get_mencoro_guide or get_available_filters), so it is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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