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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that entry files are resolved live from each package (i.e., network lookups at call time), but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown packages or how unpinned versions resolve to a moving latest.

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?

Two short sentences with the outcome front-loaded and no filler; the second sentence adds the live-resolution caveat. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety and open-world access. What remains thin is the edge-case behavior (unknown packages, unspecified version resolution) for a tool that performs live network lookups.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% for the single 'entries' parameter, so the description should compensate; it conveys the concept (a set of bare specifiers mapped to package URLs) and that entry points default unless a file is given, matching the nested 'file' default. It does not explain the optional version field or the per-entry package/specifier relationship in any detail.

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 and resource: resolve bare specifiers to UNPKG file URLs and return a ready-to-paste import map. This clearly distinguishes it from check_importmap or build_file_url by outcome (generated map vs. validation vs. single URL), though it never names those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'ready-to-paste import map' — an agent can infer this is the creation step before check_importmap, but the description never says when to use this instead of resolve_package or check_importmap, nor any prerequisites.

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