create_bubble_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ({filepath, districts_matched, title}) and notes the bias-avoidance behavior. However, it lacks details on prerequisites, side effects (e.g., file creation), or performance implications.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences and a clear return line. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 6 parameters (3 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, key behavior, and return format. It could be more complete with usage hints or prerequisites, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating that circle size corresponds to magnitude (value_column), but does not elaborate on other parameters like theme or filename beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Bubble map of Serbia' and explains that circle size represents magnitude, specifying the resource and distinguishing it from generic mapping tools. It also mentions avoiding large-district bias, adding unique context.

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 usage for visualizing numeric magnitudes on a map of Serbia but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like create_serbia_map or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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