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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds no further behavioral context—no mention of side effects, error cases, or data returned. It simply repeats the read intent without additional transparency.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—with no redundant fluff. The 'Guidance' prefix is slightly odd but does not harm clarity. It is well-structured and to the point.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description still omits essential context: it does not explain the relationship between the two ids (map item id and paragraph id) or clarify that both are required. It also lacks any situational context, making it incomplete for an agent deciding to use this tool.

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% because both parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add any semantic detail beyond listing 'id, paragraph_id', so it neither enhances nor detracts from the parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('one map paragraph'), which is specific enough to distinguish from other get_* tools. However, it only mentions 'paragraph id' without explicitly referencing the map id parameter, so it is not fully explicit about the required input combination.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cms_list_map_paragraphs or cms_get_map. The 'Guidance' section merely restates the purpose rather than offering selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool choice.

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