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

Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses free/no-auth usage, no side effects, and that every request is recorded and analyzed in aggregate. It also explains return behavior per step. This adds meaningful context beyond the structured hints.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose and safety, second explains input and output, third discloses data use. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 compensates by explaining what is returned per step (checkable fact, claim type, remediation). It also covers data handling. For a 2-param tool, this is comprehensive, though it could specify output format details.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising to pass the whole plan including undecomposed steps, which clarifies how the 'steps' parameter should be used. The return description also ties parameters to expected output.

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 uses a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('a multi-step plan against what can be grounded in the real world'), and clearly states the per-step output. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on verifiability mapping rather than feasibility or purchase confirmation, making its role unique.

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 clear usage context ('call liberally during planning') and instructs to include all steps, even undecomposed ones. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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