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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation is consistent with the description, which describes a passive fetch. Beyond the annotation, the description discloses the return payload (handle, plan, remaining map creations), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It doesn't mention auth or error behavior, but the core behavior is conveyed.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the most important scope qualifier ('signed-in user's') is front-loaded. It reads as a fragment rather than stating an action, which slightly weakens the opening.

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 no-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient, and it helpfully outlines the return fields in the absence of an output schema. Additional detail on what 'plan' means or quota semantics would make it fully complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by tying the tool to the 'signed-in user', making clear no identifier is required.

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?

It names the specific resource (the signed-in user's account) and enumerates what's returned: public handle, plan, and remaining map quota. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve', but the resource and scope are unmistakable, and 'signed-in user's' separates it from get_public_map or get_map.

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 phrase 'signed-in user's' implies it needs no identifier and applies only to the caller's own account, which is a useful usage cue. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_public_map, get_map, or list_maps, nor any preconditions such as authentication failure behavior.

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