Bubble Map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what is inherent to rendering a chart, so it does not supplement annotations significantly.

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, front-loaded with purpose and data format, no wasted words.

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 is adequate for a render tool with many optional params and no output schema. It explains the data format and typical uses, though it could mention that bubble size scales with value.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so the description's mention of the {label, lat, lon, value} structure adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 renders a bubble map with sized circles at geographic coordinates, and gives a specific data format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like render_geo_chart by focusing on city-level points.

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 suggests use cases ('city-level data, office locations, event density') but does not explicitly indicate when not to use it or compare to alternatives like render_geo_chart.

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