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.