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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to re-explain safety. It adds that the caller should 'Send pass' and that the same data is available in the brief, but it does not describe return format, error behavior, or whether pilotKey is needed here.

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 compact and front-loads the returned facts, with no wasted sentences. Its structure is still slightly cryptic due to fragments like 'The map facts once' and 'Send pass,' but it is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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 read-only facts tool with no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating the returned map and weapon fields. It also notes the pass requirement and brief duplication, though it leaves the use case and pilotKey semantics to the schema and sibling context.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions only the pass ('Send pass') and says nothing about pilotKey, so it adds little meaning beyond structured parameter documentation.

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 enumerates the resource and returned facts: map name, size, boundary radius, landmarks, speeds, ranges, and weapon stats. It lacks a direct verb like 'retrieve' and does not sharply distinguish itself from siblings beyond noting that 'The brief holds the same,' but the purpose is still clear from the detailed content list.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use get_map versus alternatives such as brief or get_match_file. 'The brief holds the same' and 'Send pass' provide a hint about duplication and authentication, but they do not establish selection criteria or exclusions.

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