Add a Google Map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious placement semantics and default section-selection behavior that annotations cannot express. It does not mention what happens if the place lookup fails or returns multiple matches, a relevant gap given openWorldHint=true.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and example, then placement behavior, then the escape hatch for reordering. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

For a single-parameter insertion tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, placement, and reordering. The only shortfall is silence on lookup failure or ambiguous place-name results, which an agent might encounter given the open-world hint.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Place name or address', so the baseline would be 3. The embedded example 'Plaza Mayor, Madrid' adds practical meaning by showing that free-form human-readable addresses (not place IDs) are expected, which is real value beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Embed a Google Map for a place or address') and gives a concrete input example, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely named sibling gsites_add_embed, which is the only missing piece for a 5.

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?

It explains the insertion context (after the currently selected section), the default selection behavior (last section, so appends at the end), and redirects to gsites_move_section for reordering. It gives no guidance on when a map is preferable to gsites_add_embed or an image, so it stops short of 5.

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