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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It implies an informational, read-only map of capabilities ('one map'), but it does not explicitly state that it performs no side effects, requires no authentication, or what its output will look like.

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?

Two punchy sentences, front-loaded with 'START HERE' and zero wasted words. Every clause contributes to orienting the agent without repeating schema or annotation information.

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 zero-parameter informational entry-point tool, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool provides and how to proceed to more specific tools, which is exactly what an agent needs in order to benefit from this call.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to add. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description adds nothing parameter-specific, but none is 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 says exactly what the tool is: 'one map of everything an agent can do on X1' and 'which tool to call for each.' This clearly positions it as an index/entry-point tool and distinguishes it from the numerous sibling tools.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to start here and says 'If you only make one call, make it this one.' It also frames the tool as a router to other tools, making the usage pattern unambiguous.

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