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.