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

Beyond the annotations (which only flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses the link lifetime ('works for an hour after the map last changed'), the recipient's continuation path (add to account, publish and share for good), and the returned id/editToken. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded with purpose then link behavior then the returned credentials and next step. Dense but every clause carries information; the middle sentence about the recipient's account flow is slightly long but not wasteful.

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 one required nested parameter, no output schema, and no enum guidance, the description supplies what's missing: where the document spec lives, the link expiry semantics, and the id/editToken return values. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested 'map' object is already well documented in the schema; the description adds value by naming the authoritative document source (get_map_spec) rather than re-listing fields. It doesn't add meaning about individual properties beyond that pointer, so it sits just above baseline.

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 ('Make a web map of places, routes or areas') plus the outcome ('get a link anyone can open'), which clearly separates it from preview_map (view without publishing) and update_map (modify existing). An agent can select it without inspecting the schema.

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 routes the change-existing case to update_map ('keep them, to change this map with update_map rather than making another') and points to get_map_spec for the document format. It doesn't mention when to prefer preview_map instead, so usage guidance is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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