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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the semantics of the map (geography = meaning), the output structure, and the VIA quarter special case. It lacks an explicit statement about read-only behavior or potential response size, but as a parameterless GET tool, the described behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 moderately lengthy but well-structured: it opens with the tool's purpose, explains the conceptual model, details return contents, introduces the VIA quarter, and closes with use cases. Each sentence contributes value, though it could potentially be tightened without loss.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, why it matters, and when to use it. It even includes a real-world URL for humans, making it self-contained for an agent to select and understand the tool correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the returned map represents and how it relates to other tools, but there are no parameter semantics to clarify since none exist.

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 the tool returns a map of the RRG 3D world, specifying it as a spatial projection of product embedding space. It details the return contents (regions with label, centroid, product count) and distinguishes it from related tools like search_products and get_drop_details by referencing their matching world positions.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this to orient spatial queries... to describe where a listing sits in the catalogue, or to direct a human to a region of the world.' It also implicitly differentiates from siblings by noting that listings in search_products and get_drop_details carry a matching world position, suggesting this tool supplements those for spatial context.

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