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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the scale (38/30 entries), what each record carries (ownership, data location, subgenres, example games, CJK terminology), and a caveat that vendors disagree on taxonomy. It does not cover freshness, caching, or format of the response, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource statement then the inventory then the usage rule. Every sentence carries information, though the inventory sentence is heavy and the tool's retrieval verb is left implicit.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what is returned; it does so by enumerating the fields in each map (ownership, data location, definitions, subgenres, terms). For a single-enum reference lookup this is nearly complete, with only response format and pagination left unstated.

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% and the enum values self-document, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each enum selects: 'platforms' maps to storefronts/consoles/livestreaming/UGC with ownership, and 'genres' maps to definitions and multilingual terms. Baseline 3 is exceeded because it characterizes each option.

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 names the two concrete resources it returns — 'The platform and genre maps' — and enumerates their contents (38 platforms, 30 genres with definitions and multilingual terms). This is far more specific than a tautology and clearly separable in content from siblings like get_market or get_source, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It gives a concrete when-to-use condition: 'Read the genre map before comparing two datasets' with a reason (no shared taxonomy, records vendor disagreement). This is real routing guidance, but it covers only the genres branch and offers no exclusion or alternative-selection advice for the platforms branch or sibling tools.

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