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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing scope (only the user's maps), ordering (most recently changed first), and the return payload (ids and links). It stops short of saying how the list is truncated or whether results are paginated past the limit.

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 that front-loads scope and ordering, then the return shape. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and returned fields, which compensates for the missing output schema. The remaining gap is pagination/truncation behavior relative to limit.

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 100%, so both the limit default and the search filter semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource and its scope precisely: the user's own maps, sorted most-recently-changed first, returning ids and links. That implicitly separates it from get_public_map (other people's maps) and get_map (a single map). It does not explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate against, notably search_maps, which leaves one inference to the agent.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. The presence of a sibling named search_maps plus a 'search' parameter on this tool makes the routing decision genuinely ambiguous, and the description does nothing to resolve it.

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