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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and not open-world, but the description adds meaningful behavior: one indicator draws a choropleth, two draw a bivariate map, and a third is dropped and reported back. This clarifies output behavior beyond the annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the primary use ('Use to end an answer...'), then covers behavioral specifics without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool shape, the 100% schema coverage for the parameters, and the readOnly annotation, the description adequately covers return behavior and edge cases (the third indicator being droy). No output schema exists, but the description explains the return value as a map link, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds parameter-specific meaning by explaining the consequence of one vs two vs three indicators, which directly clarifies how the 'indicators' parameter is interpreted and what the returned link will show.

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 states a specific verb ('end an answer with a link'), a clear resource (a spatialindia.com/app URL), and the exact scope of use. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling data-retrieval tools because it is about generating a link, not retrieving or analyzing data.

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 gives explicit timing: use it 'after any ranking, comparison or district lookup, and whenever they ask to see, map or visualise something.' This strongly indicates when the tool should be invoked, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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