map_info

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/non-destructive/idempotent annotations by disclosing the cost profile (1024-byte header only, no map data loaded, no PyMOL, no network) and, importantly, the accuracy limits (±5–15%) and the cella/m vs cella/n derivation trap. What it omits is the failure mode — what happens on a malformed or non-MRC path.

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?

Front-loaded with the headline answer in the first line, with supporting caveats in descending priority. The derivation-trap paragraph is longer than strictly needed but each sentence carries operational value; trimming the ±5–15% elaboration slightly would sharpen it.

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?

A single-parameter, read-only inspection tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema. The description supplies exactly the missing layer — accuracy expectations and the anisotropy/cropping/permutation warnings — so nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is absent.

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%, and the path parameter's accepted extensions and gzip support are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that (no relative-vs-absolute or working-directory note), so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Report an MRC/CCP4 map's geometry, above all its voxel size.' That clearly separates it from load_map (loads density), structure_info (coordinate metadata), and density_view (rendering). An agent can pick this out without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the content ('report geometry') and by the header-only read, but the description never names a sibling or states 'use this instead of X when Y.' No explicit when-not condition is given, so an agent must infer that this is the pre-flight check before load_map/isomesh.

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