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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added value is the output form: an inline image rather than JSON, with theme and dimension controls. It doesn't mention edge cases such as a wallet with zero properties or whether the map auto-fits bounds, which keeps it from a 5.

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 waste. The core capability is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by return format and the optional styling knobs.

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 tells the agent to expect an inline image rather than structured data, which is the key unknown. Combined with full schema coverage and rich annotations, only minor gaps remain (empty-portfolio behavior, whether image generation is rate-limited).

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% — every parameter has its own description including defaults and the 100-1280 bounds. The description only restates 'supports dark/light themes and custom dimensions' without adding format or behavioral detail (e.g., how points are styled or whether width/height affect point density). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') plus a precisely scoped resource: a static map image of ALL properties a wallet owns on Fabrica, plotted as points. That scope statement ('all properties a wallet owns') implicitly but clearly separates it from get_land_map_image (single land) and get_land_portfolio (data, not image), so an agent can pick it without opening 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Returns an inline image' signals this is the visual-output option, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g., use get_land_portfolio for structured data instead of an image). The agent must infer routing.

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