get_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool returns countries with stories, counts, and top headlines. However, it does not clarify behavior regarding the optional 'region' filter (e.g., whether it filters or selects) or mention any limitations like pagination.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and output content. Every phrase is meaningful and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context for an agent to understand the output. Minor gap: no explanation of the 'region' parameter's effect on results, which is partly covered by the schema.

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% for the single parameter 'region'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Filter by region key' line. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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: retrieving geographic story distribution, including which countries have active tech stories, counts per country, and top headlines. This verb+resource is specific and distinguishes from siblings like get_stories (individual stories) and get_stats (aggregate statistics).

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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stats or get_regions. Usage context is implied by the name and output description, but no direct guidance 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.