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

Annotations already communicate readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, and destructive=false. The description only adds that it creates an item and does not describe side effects, errors, or return behavior, but core safety properties are covered by 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 short and free of irrelevant detail, but it slightly repeats the same idea: 'Create map item' followed by 'Create one CMS map item.' The pipe-separated context fragment is also minimally redundant, though not harmful.

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?

With 17 parameters and no output schema, the description does not state what the create call returns (e.g., created item ID) or outline follow-up actions. Required inputs are fully specified in the schema, making the description adequate but not fully complete for a complex create operation.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., categories discovery, useThumbAsPinIcon sequencing, status/publishedDate rules). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Create one CMS map (point of interest) item from map category ids', giving a concrete action and object type. It distinguishes the top-level map creation from sibling paragraph tools, though it repeats 'map item' and relies on the tool name for full clarity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as cms_create_map_paragraph, cms_update_map, or cms_get_map, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection from the title and schema.

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