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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuine facts not in the annotations: the map is created as a private draft (not published) and the payload limit is about 1 MB — useful failure-mode context, but nothing about permissions, what happens on repeat calls, or the response.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the outcome state ('private draft'), with the input source and size caveat trailing. 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?

Adequate for a single-parameter creation tool with annotations, but there is no output schema and the description never says what comes back (a map ID or URL) or whether the created draft is immediately retrievable via get_map. The size limit is also vague ('about 1 MB').

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that 'map' is the Moving Polygons import format as object or string. The description's only added semantics is the ~1 MB size ceiling, which is a real constraint but marginal against a fully documented schema.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Create a new ... map') with two differentiating qualifiers: the resulting object is a private draft, and the input is an import JSON payload. It is separable from siblings like replace_map_content and publish_map, though it never names them.

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?

The 'from an import JSON' phrasing implies the precondition for calling it, and the size limit hints at when it will fail, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus replace_map_content or publish_map, and no mention of fetching the format via get_import_format.

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