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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it reuses the tria map, shows schematic routes (straight lines) instead of road routing, and attributes the source. No contradictions.

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 concise, two sentences front-loading key capabilities. While it could be structured with bullet points, the current format is efficient and avoids redundancy.

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?

The description covers core functionality but omits constraints like maximum number of points (40) and scenes (20), which are present in the schema. Given the complexity (nested objects, output schema exists), the description is adequate but could mention these limits to improve completeness.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The tool description mentions features (chips, carousel, autoplay) but does not add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the tool displays an interactive itinerary map with specific features (fixed points, scenes, chips, carousel, optional autoplay). It distinctively positions this tool against show_map by emphasizing itinerary-specific functionality and non-road routing.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like show_map or get_map. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or alternative scenarios. For an AI agent, this could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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