run_accessibility_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format (base64 PNG) and lists possible parameter values, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any error behavior. The lack of behavioral traits beyond parameter enumeration is a significant gap.

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 structured efficiently: first a one-line summary of purpose and output, followed by a clean 'Args:' list. It front-loads essential information and uses minimal words to convey the parameter details. No redundant or filler sentences.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality well: purpose, output format, and all parameter details. It mentions the required condition for region_id. However, it lacks information on error handling, performance, or side effects, which could be useful for an AI agent. Overall, it is mostly complete for a map generation tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all five parameters with their valid values (e.g., mode options: car_24h, cycle, walk; amenity types; map_type options; region_type; and region_id details including examples). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, which only provides titles and types. The description effectively tells the agent exactly what values to use.

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 the tool generates a BOP accessibility map showing travel times to amenities and returns a base64-encoded PNG image. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('BOP accessibility map'), and the name 'run_accessibility_map' aligns well with the purpose. The description distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'run_modal_split' or 'generate_thematic_map' by specifying the output type and focus on travel times.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does and lists parameters. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools. Usage context is only implied by the parameter options.

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