generate_thematic_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (base64-encoded PNG with SB styling including logo, legend, scale bar) and mentions default values for parameters. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a bulleted list of indicators, then a clear args section. It is concise with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (indicated by context), the description complements it by explaining the return format and styling. It covers the required parameter and explains optional ones. It could mention potential errors or performance considerations, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 explain parameters. It does so effectively: 'indicator' is elaborated with a list of available IDs, 'location' with examples (municipality name, province name, 'national'), 'location_type' with allowed values, and 'year' with explanation of default. This adds significant 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?

Clearly states the tool generates a branded SB thematic map for a location, returning a base64-encoded PNG with styling. The verb 'generate' and resource 'thematic map' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on map generation with a specific set of indicators and styling.

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?

Provides a list of available indicators and explains the parameters (indicator, location, location_type, year), which helps the agent choose appropriate inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a thematic map is needed vs. a different type of analysis). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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