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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating operation, and the description adds essentially nothing beyond it. The one behavioral note — that the resulting link can carry an open gym drawer — largely duplicates the gym_id schema description ('open the details drawer'). No mention of return type, URL construction, expiry, or authentication needs.

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 primary scope ('for a city search') is front-loaded ahead of the optional variant. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

The tool is simple (two params, one required, no nesting) and the annotations cover the safety profile, so not much is required. Still, with no output schema the description should clarify that the return value is a link/URL, and it offers no routing guidance relative to the four sibling tools.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'city search' and 'gym drawer' merely restates those same parameters in prose without adding format, constraints, or interaction rules.

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 identifies the resource (an OpenMapp map link) and its scope (city search, optional open gym drawer), which is more than the title alone. However, it contains no verb, so it never states what the tool actually does — presumably generate/return a deep link — and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like find_gyms, get_gym, or list_cities. It is a noun phrase rather than a task statement.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The phrase 'optionally with a gym drawer already open' hints at a scenario, but the agent must infer it is for producing a shareable/navigable map reference rather than fetching data, which is exactly the ambiguity against find_gyms and get_gym.

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