get_static_map_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication methods (X-API-Key header for server-side, &api_key for URL), the return format (url, auth_note, html_example), and that no JavaScript is needed. It does not mention any side effects or permissions, but as a URL generation tool, it is inherently non-destructive and read-only.

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 very concise and well-structured. It has clear sections: purpose, return format, use cases, zoom guide, and authentication instructions. Each sentence adds value without 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 has 6 parameters (4 required), no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools that are distinct, the description covers most aspects: purpose, usage context, authentication, and zoom guidance. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning that the map is in PNG format and that the URL is for the Mapsi API, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use 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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds a detailed zoom guide that explains how zoom levels correspond to map scales (e.g., 14-16 street level), which goes beyond the schema's brief description. For other parameters like width, height, and API key, the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the zoom guide is a significant addition.

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 builds a URL for a static PNG map image centered on a location. It provides the return format and distinguishes itself from siblings like geocode, route, and map_match by focusing on static map URL generation. The verb 'build' and resource 'URL for a static PNG map image' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly lists use cases: email templates, PDF reports, social sharing previews, server-side image generation, with note that no JavaScript is needed. The zoom guide provides contextual advice on zoom levels for different map scales. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_tile_style_url.

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