Obtener Mapas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context by specifying it returns 'URLs de mapas' (map URLs), which clarifies the output format beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured with purpose statement, args, returns, and usage examples in separate sections. It's appropriately sized, though the example section could be slightly more concise. Most sentences earn their place by clarifying functionality.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter usage, return format (URLs), and examples. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use versus sibling tools, but overall it provides sufficient context for agent use.

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%, with the parameter department_id fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning it's optional and for obtaining a specific department's map, but doesn't provide additional details like ID ranges or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('obtiene' - gets) and resource ('mapas de Colombia o de un departamento específico'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_department or get_departments which return data rather than maps. It explicitly mentions both country-level and department-level map retrieval.

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 provides implied usage through example queries ('Dame el mapa de Antioquia', 'Quiero ver mapas de Colombia'), showing when to use the tool for map requests. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_department (which returns department data) or search_colombia (which might include maps in broader searches).

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