her_crossref_map

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

The description adds visualization specifics (color-coded map) beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict annotations and provides context on output format, though lacks details on side effects or auth needs.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence is relevant.

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 6 unannotated parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter definitions, expected output format, and usage examples, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for effective invocation.

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?

Despite 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description provides no explanation of what parameters like basemap, candidates, or radius values do. The description fails to add any meaning beyond the input schema.

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 clearly states it visualizes cross-reference results as a color-coded map with specific colors for match types. It also mentions it runs the same analysis as her_cross_reference, distinguishing it from 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 implies usage for visual mapping of cross-reference results, contrasting with her_cross_reference which likely provides data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the sibling mention.

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