her_crossref_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context like color categories and linkage to her_cross_reference, but does not disclose map format or potential response structure, which would enrich transparency.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, color legend, and relationship to a sibling tool with no fluff. The information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain parameters or return value. It provides a helpful pointer to her_cross_reference but leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of what basemap, candidates, radii, etc. mean. The only hint is 'runs the same analysis as her_cross_reference', which is insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Visualise' with resource 'cross-reference results' and specifies color-coded map categories. It clearly distinguishes from sibling her_cross_reference by noting it runs the same analysis but in map form.

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 implies use for visualising cross-reference results rather than raw analysis, and explicitly names her_cross_reference as the alternative. However, it does not state explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions, leaving some inference needed.

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