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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds that rationale is stored in the operations log for traceability. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects, limits, or error behavior, so the added value is moderate.

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 two sentences, starting with the core action and return value. The second sentence adds crucial guidance about not guessing shapes and referencing an external resource. Every sentence is necessary and well-placed.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return (map_id) and mentions follow-up tools. It lacks details on error handling or what happens with unprocessable queries, but for a simple tool with two parameters, it is largely 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by providing examples for query (e.g., 'coffee shops in Tokyo') and explaining that rationale is a required audit-log label stored for traceability. This goes beyond the schema's type/length constraints.

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's purpose: 'Create a new workspace from a natural-language query' and specifies the return value (map_id). This differentiates it from sibling tools like mutate_map or get_state, which are mentioned as follow-up actions.

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 description tells when to use the tool (to create a workspace from a query) and what to do with the result (pass to mutate_map or get_state). It also directs users to a resource for downstream tool shapes, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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