her_map

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety. The description adds useful context about the return format ('structured map view with colour-coded layers'), but does not disclose potential pitfalls such as how results are aggregated, what happens with excessive results, or any pagination/limits beyond the schema defaults. It provides moderate additional value beyond the annotation.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. It wastes no words and efficiently conveys both purpose and output structure. Every sentence contributes valuable information.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention that the tool requires some form of location specification (lat/lon or bbox) and radius, which are central to a map tool. An agent has no idea how to use the tool correctly without further parameter documentation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It makes sparse connections to parameters by mentioning 'sources' and 'designation type', but says nothing about lat/lon, bbox, radius_m, max_results, or basemap. The description does not meaningfully clarify the meaning of most input fields beyond their schema types and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb 'Visualise' with a clear resource ('heritage assets from multiple sources') and distinguishes its output ('multi-layer interactive map', 'colour-coded layers by designation type and source') from sibling search/export tools. This makes the tool's unique purpose immediately obvious.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (for spatial visualization of multiple heritage sources) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use it. There is no naming of sibling tools or exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied.

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