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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read, what an "OG card" contains, whether output is an image URL, markup, or JSON, nor any caching/auth behavior.

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?

Three words is not conciseness but under-specification; nothing is front-loaded because nothing is stated. It is short only because it omits required information.

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 and no output schema, the description is the only place to explain the return value and behavior, and it explains neither. Only the schema's parameter docs save it from being entirely opaque.

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 both required parameters ('slug' with an example, 'region' with an enum) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about slug format or region semantics.

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 OG card" is a noun phrase with no verb; it essentially restates the name (og_maps_by_slug) and gestures at an "OG card" concept without saying what the tool does or returns. A reader cannot tell whether this fetches image metadata, generates a social preview, or renders HTML, and it is indistinguishable from siblings like og_tanks_by_slug or og_clans_by_tag.

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 whatsoever about when to use this versus maps_by_slug, maps_by_slug_history, or the other og_* variants. The agent must guess from the name alone.

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