export_static_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose important traits: the result is a basemap-only PNG, CSDI features are excluded, and the ArcGIS alternative requires ARCGIS_TOKEN. It is less clear about file overwrite/naming behavior after writing into the workspace.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by invocation guidance and an important exclusion. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 the main invocation path and alternatives well, and the output schema means return values need not be explained. However, for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, size and basemap behavior remain under-specified.

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 0%, and the description compensates only partially. It explains bbox format and CRS and the bbox-vs-center+zoom choice, but leaves size, basemap values, and center format undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: render a basemap-only PNG into the workspace. It clearly scopes the output to reports/decks/docs and explicitly separates this tool from build_map and ArcGIS print services.

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?

It gives explicit use cases (reports, decks, docs), tells the agent how to specify the area via bbox or center+zoom, and warns that CSDI features are not drawn. It also names the correct alternatives when data-on-basemap output is needed.

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