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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies the output is a URL ('map link') but does not explicitly state the return type, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. For a tool that likely just constructs a URL, the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a gap.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('OpenMapp map link'). It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy, though it could benefit from slightly more specificity about usage.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two params, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are needed to help an agent decide when to call this tool and what to expect. However, the schema and the tool's straightforward nature partially compensate.

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 q and gym_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond loosely mirroring the schema (city search ~ q, gym drawer ~ gym_id). Since the schema covers everything, the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool generates an 'OpenMapp map link' for a city search, optionally with a gym drawer open. The verb and resource are specific, and the mention of 'city search' distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_gyms or get_gym, though it does not explicitly name 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it should be used to obtain a shareable URL, nor does it indicate that find_gyms should be used first to get gym_id. The schema notes gym_id comes from find_gyms, but the description itself provides no usage context or exclusions.

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