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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds little beyond restating filters; it does not describe default response behavior or pagination defaults.

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 main sentence is concise, but the appended 'Guidance:' sentence is redundant and truncated mid-phrase. This duplication and incompleteness prevent the description from being well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description could benefit from a brief note about return shape or defaults. The schema and annotations fill many gaps, but the truncated guidance leaves the description feeling incomplete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates filter names already present in the schema; only the reference to cms_list_cms_sections adds cross-tool context, but that is also in the category parameter.

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 explicitly states the action ('List'), the resource ('CMS map (point of interest) items'), and the optional filtering dimensions. It clearly distinguishes this from single-item retrieval and paragraph listing 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?

It explains when to use the tool by describing optional filters (category, status, search, pagination, ids, sorting) and points to cms_list_cms_sections for category ids. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like cms_get_map, but the list-vs-get distinction is strongly implied.

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