MapPoster

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety surface is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: the result is shown in chat, it links out to the editor for fine-tuning or printing in drawn styles, and nothing is saved or purchased. It stops short of describing pagination/return payload nuances, but for a read-only generator this is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then input, then behavior — good ordering. The gift-occasion enumeration (anniversary, Valentine's, wedding, engagement, housewarming, marathon, birthplace) is long but serves as trigger vocabulary for this tool, so it mostly earns its place; it borders on bloated.

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 45-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision path: when to use it, what minimal input is required, and what happens to the design. It omits explicit direction to the sibling tools (list_themes for `theme`, search_location for resolving `place`), which leaves a small gap for an agent needing to populate the enum-constrained fields.

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?

With 45 parameters and 93% schema coverage the schema carries most parameter meaning, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value on top: it tells the agent the minimum viable input ("Give a `place` or `lat`/`lon`; the rest is optional") and clarifies the multi-place limit ("up to three places") that spans `place` plus `more_places`, which a reader would otherwise have to infer.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Designs a map poster and shows it in the chat") and the description later names siblings like the MapPoster editor link and list_themes-adjacent concepts. An agent can distinguish it from search_location and list_themes without opening a 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?

Explicit when-to-use (map poster, map print, wall art, wallpaper, gift scenarios tied to a place) and explicit when-not (gift advice, directions, travel plans, star/night-sky maps, photo posters, 3D/wooden/scratch-off maps, hiking trails/GPX). Rival conditions are spelled out rather than left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: what each entry reveals (key colors, whether the PNG download covers it, and personal-use-only restrictions), which the agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the return contents, then the hand-off to create_poster. The parenthetical mood list is somewhat long but does real work by enumerating searchable values, so little is wasted.

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-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers when to call it, what the results include, and how to use them downstream. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents both the search and render_mode parameters in detail, including examples of mood words to omit. The description adds only a light hint ('a theme by name') that is already implied by the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (MapPoster themes), and specifies exactly what the returned list contains (key colors, PNG coverage, personal-use flags). It also distinguishes itself by naming the downstream consumer, create_poster, so an agent can place it in the workflow without ambiguity.

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 opening 'Use this when the user wants to see or choose a map poster's style' gives an explicit trigger, and 'Pass the theme key to create_poster' routes the agent to the correct follow-up sibling. The relationship with create_poster is fully spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the return shape (coordinates + suggested zoom) and that ambiguous names may yield multiple candidates for the user to pick, though it doesn't mention a result limit or ranking behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary trigger and tightly packed, but the single run-on sentence carrying both use cases, the return description and four exclusions is dense and could be split for scanability.

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 fills that gap by describing the returned coordinates and zoom level, and it covers triggers, exclusions, ambiguity handling and the downstream create_poster integration — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 query, limit and language are already documented with examples and patterns. The description only indirectly touches parameter behavior via the ambiguity/selection scenario, which is the baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (finds a city, neighborhood, street address, venue, landmark or coordinates) and the payload it returns (coordinates and suggested zoom level), which is exactly what distinguishes it from create_poster and list_themes.

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?

Explicit when-to-use conditions (map poster needs coordinates for a spot to mark; user-named place is ambiguous) and explicit exclusions (directions, travel times, general map questions, current location), plus the downstream tool to pass results to.

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