Maps Build Maps Link

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

The annotations (openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) carry the only behavioral signal, and the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only URL builder, whether delegation implies network dependency, or what the output link contains. The description does not contradict the annotations, so no contradiction is flagged.

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 single sentence is short, but brevity without information is under-specification, not conciseness. The sentence does not earn its place because it solely repeats the tool name and adds no operational value.

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 three parameters and 0% param description coverage, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's function, when to use it, how parameters behave, or what the output schema represents. The presence of an output schema is the only mitigating factor, but the description never even states what the tool produces.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence, but it provides no parameter explanation at all. Origin, destination, and transport are only known through their names and defaults ('driving'), forcing the agent to infer meaning. The description fails to clarify parameter format, constraints, or how transport values map to map-link behavior.

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, 'Delegated Apple domain tool 'maps_build_maps_link' exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP,' merely restates the tool name and the transport mechanism. It never states that the tool builds an Apple Maps link or URL, leaving the agent to guess functionality from the name and parameter names. This is a tautology.

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?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool. With siblings like maps_open_directions_in_maps, apple_maps_get_directions_strict, and maps_get_directions available, the description gives no basis for choosing this over alternatives. An agent cannot tell whether to build a link, fetch directions, or open the Maps app.

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