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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world read. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the parcel-boundary rendering with a pin fallback when no boundary exists, the fact that the result is an inline image rather than a URL, and theme/dimension customization. It does not cover image format or size limits, which the width/height caps suggest exist.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core capability (static map of a parcel boundary) is front-loaded ahead of the fallback and configuration details.

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 no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return shape ('inline image') and the fallback rendering path. It is essentially complete for a read-only image fetch, with only minor gaps around output format/limits and how slug vs tokenId are used.

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% and all five parameters (slug, theme, width, height, tokenId) are documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes theme and dimension support without adding format or interaction detail (e.g. whether slug or tokenId is preferred), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a static map image of a land property on Fabrica') and even specifies the rendered content (parcel boundary or fallback pin). The singular 'a land property' implicitly separates it from the sibling get_land_portfolio_map_image, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the description's scope (one property's map image), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing guidance such as when to prefer get_land_boundary or get_land_portfolio_map_image. The agent must infer the choice from the resource noun alone.

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