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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond stating it's a load operation for a viewer card, but that context ('viewer only', 'Not for the model') is mildly useful. It doesn't describe pagination (cursor), layer filtering effects, or behavior on missing map_id.

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?

Very brief, two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'Not for the model' sentence is arguably wasted space that doesn't help an agent select or invoke the tool correctly.

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 four parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It fails to explain parameter meaning, return shape, or how this differs from other viewer/state tools, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description says nothing about any of the four parameters (map_id, op_id, cursor, layer_ids). With no compensation in the description, an agent has no semantic guidance for these undocumented parameters.

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 general purpose (load a map version) but is vague on what 'map view' actually returns and how it differs from siblings like get_state or build_map. The odd note 'Not for the model' is more of a routing directive than a purpose statement, leaving the actual scope unclear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_state or build_map. The phrase 'Used by the ShowMeOnMap map card' implies a specific client context but does not translate into actionable when/when-not guidance for an agent.

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