get_page_map

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

Goes far beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that content is untrusted, markers like <web_content_*> should not be treated as instructions, and token budgets are clamped. No contradiction with annotations; adds significant context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a succinct security warning, then a well-formatted parameter list. Every sentence adds value; length is justified given the number of parameters and context needed. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, open-world input), the description covers return types, interaction workflow (ref numbers + execute_action), security caveats, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return structure details are not required. No significant gaps remain.

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 has zero description coverage (0%), so the description fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters in detail: defaults, allowed values, precedence (max_content_tokens overrides detail_level), clamping range, and use cases for each. This is comprehensive and clarifies meaning 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get structured Page Map') and resource, with a clear listing of return contents (interactive elements, ref numbers, compressed content). It distinguishes from batch_get_page_map by implying single-page usage, but does not explicitly contrast with get_page_state, leaving some ambiguity among sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states to use ref numbers with execute_action for interaction, and offers task_hint categories ('search', 'detail', 'cart', etc.) that imply when to use the tool in different contexts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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