mapping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool modifies data. The only behavioral hint is that it constructs a map, but important traits like destruction or idempotency are missing.

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 single-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, but could benefit from a brief structure break (e.g., separating purpose from constraints) for readability.

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 lacks critical details: no output specification (e.g., image, URL), no mention that tool_name and plot_type are fixed (const), and no clarification on how the 'previous query' results are accessed. For a 4-param tool with no output schema, more completeness is needed.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds context by mentioning longitude, latitude, and variables (though these are not in the schema), which suggests the tool uses data from a prior query. The schema already explains the parameters, so the description adds limited additional meaning.

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 it constructs a map from a previous Site Phenometrics query using longitude, latitude, and variables to plot on a USA map. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on visualization rather than data retrieval. However, it does not specify what 'results' means (e.g., a data object or reference), which could cause minor ambiguity.

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 implies the tool must be used after a Site Phenometrics query but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., export-raw-data, individual-phenometrics). No exclusions or conditions are stated, leaving the agent without clear decision-making context.

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