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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating results are limited to published maps and by describing the return payload (interactive map link, text version, article), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 compact sentences with zero waste: the purpose and search dimensions are front-loaded, followed by the return shape. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter search tool whose schema is fully documented, the description is essentially complete: it covers scope, searchable fields, and return content. Minor gaps (no mention of result ordering or the default limit behavior) are non-critical and partly covered by the schema.

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 is 3. The description adds combinability semantics ('and/or') that the schema does not state, telling the agent the two filters can be used alone or together, which is genuine meaning beyond the field docs.

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 (find) and resource (published animated maps) and scopes it with domain examples plus the two search dimensions (title/description words and year). It does not name a sibling such as list_maps or get_map, so differentiation is implicit rather than 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 'by words ... and/or a year', making it clear this is the text/year search entry point. There is no statement about when to prefer list_maps, get_map, or get_public_map instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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