Geo Map

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's burden is lower. The description adds context about data format (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, performance). No contradiction with annotations.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and progressively adds detail. Every sentence is necessary: purpose, use case question, and data format instructions.

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 covers the core purpose and data format. It does not explain optional parameters (projection, colorScale, theme), but the schema descriptions handle that. Given no output schema and 10 parameters, the description is minimally adequate for a rendering tool with good sibling context.

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 100%, so the description adds limited value beyond the schema. It reiterates the data format but does not provide deeper semantic insights for parameters like projection or colorScale. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 title 'Geo Map' and description 'Render a choropleth world map' clearly state the tool's function. The description specifies the visualization type (choropleth), geographic scope (world), and data format (country codes with numeric values). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'render_bubble_map' by focusing on color-coded countries.

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 provides a high-level use case ('Where is the value concentrated?') but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'render_bubble_map' or specify when not to use this tool. It lacks exclusion criteria or when-to-use guidance, which is adequate but not exemplary.

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