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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: result ordering by date, precision-gated date matching, and the temporal floor (UCDP since 1989, heritage sites undated). It stops short of describing result shape or how limit/pagination interacts with large result sets.

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?

Front-loaded with what is searched, then matching semantics, then sort order — three sentences, no filler. The dataset enumeration is long but each item is load-bearing for understanding coverage, so little is wasted.

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 9-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the hard parts (date semantics, dataset coverage, ordering) while annotations cover safety. It omits any indication of the returned record shape and how limit defaults/caps interact with the result set, which is the main remaining gap.

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 coverage is 78% (near the high baseline), and the description still adds meaning the schema does not: how from/to bounds behave against imprecisely recorded dates and that undated records are excluded by any date bound. The layer parameter carries only an enum in the schema and its values are only inferable from the dataset list in the description.

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?

States a specific verb (search) plus resource (map events) and enumerates the six underlying datasets with their provenance (Wikidata battles, UCDP, Smithsonian GVP, NOAA, meteorite falls, UNESCO). This scope is distinctive enough to separate it from siblings like world_at_year (a point-in-time snapshot) and find_polity without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete conditions governing effective use: month/day bounds only match events recorded at that precision, and undated heritage sites match only dateless searches. That is a real when-to-use/when-not rule, but it never names an alternative tool or states when another sibling should be preferred instead.

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