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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful context about what the spec covers, though it does not describe the exact return format or whether examples are included.

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 two tight sentences that front-load the trigger ('Read this first when someone wants a map') and then give the content scope and next step. There is no redundant or wasted language.

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 parameterless reference tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: when to call it, what it contains, and which sibling to use afterward. The annotations already cover the safety profile, so no additional behavioral warning is needed.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter values for the description to explain, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 identifies this as the reference/specification tool for writing squidmaps maps, listing the concrete contents: GeoJSON features, styling, popups, title panel, and legend. It also distinguishes it from create_map by positioning this as the read-first step before making a map.

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 to read this first when someone wants a map, covering places, routes, areas, and data like CSV or GeoJSON. It then names the follow-up alternative, create_map, so the sequencing and purpose are unambiguous.

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