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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: not whether the result is paginated, how many videos are returned, whether it is a read-only lookup, or what happens for a map with no videos. Two words cannot cover this for an unannotated tool.

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 words with zero waste is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no actionable information to front-load. A definition this short provides no structure for the agent to rely on.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a two-word description, the definition is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly or predict its result. Nothing about return shape, ordering, or limits is available anywhere.

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%, with slug documented as "Map slug (e.g. prokhorovka)" and region constrained to an enum with a description. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already does the documenting.

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?

"Map videos" is essentially a restatement of the tool name maps_by_slug_videos, with no verb and no statement of what is returned (a list of videos associated with the map?). It conveys a resource but not an action or outcome, so it sits at tautology level rather than a clear purpose.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as videos, videos_mine, or tanks_by_slug_videos. The agent must infer from the name alone that this returns videos tied to a specific map.

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