ExplorationMaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read. The description adds the scope of information returned but doesn't mention any specific behavioral aspects like rate limits or caching, which is acceptable given the rich annotations.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence enumerates the returned information, and the second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and precise.

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 zero parameters and the output schema exists, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what to expect and when to use it. The output schema will define the exact structure of the capabilities.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description fully describes the output categories, compensating for the absence of parameters. This is above baseline 4.

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 it returns the map types, mineral-registry jurisdictions, context overlays, search modes, and styles supported by ExplorationMaps. This is specific and distinct from siblings, as it is about capabilities, not previewing a map or searching claims.

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?

Explicitly says to use this when deciding whether ExplorationMaps can fulfill a mapping request or when a jurisdiction is unclear, providing clear context for when to call it.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns a shareable ExplorationMaps URL and explicitly rejects uploaded drill or GeoJSON data. This helps the agent set expectations about the operation's scope without contradicting the annotations.

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 long, front-loads the action, and contains no filler or repetition of the title. Each sentence earns its place: what it creates, when to use it, what it returns, and what it rejects.

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?

For a tool with nine parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description provides the key operational facts: trigger intent, output type, and a critical input limitation. It does not spell out the search-versus-location parameter choice, but the rich schema and output schema cover most invocation 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 description coverage is 67%, and most parameters already have meaningful descriptions and enums. The tool description itself adds little about parameter specifics, such as how to choose between the `search` and `location` alternatives, but it does not need to fully compensate given the schema's coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a professional ... map from a supported public mineral registry,' and enumerates the map subtypes it covers. This clearly differentiates the tool from the sibling query tools get_mapping_capabilities and search_mineral_claims, which retrieve data rather than produce a map artifact.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks to make, draw, visualize, map, or present a mineral exploration property or claims,' giving a clear positive trigger. It also provides a when-not condition for uploaded drill or GeoJSON data, though it does not name a sibling tool as the alternative route.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it searches only 'supported' registries and clarifies that results are registry records, not a legal title opinion or survey. This sets correct expectations about data authority and scope.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool searches and by what keys; the second guides usage; the third adds an important legal caveat. The most identifying information is front-loaded.

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 rich schema, full parameter descriptions, enums, annotations, and an output schema, this description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Nothing essential about the tool's purpose, scope, or limitations is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds a high-level mapping of the query types to the actual search criteria, which is useful, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema's property descriptions already provide for parameter invocation.

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 states a specific action ('Search'), a concrete resource ('supported official mineral-claim registries'), and the exact search dimensions (holder/company, claim number, claim name, or bounding box). It also differentiates the tool from its siblings by emphasizing registry-record lookups rather than mapping or capability operations.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: answer factual questions about claim records or identify ground to be mapped. It does not explicitly mention the sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use them, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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