get_map_markers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states 'Read-only' (safety), 'Returns up to 500 markers' (limit), and includes a Returns section describing the output structure. It could additionally mention pagination or authentication requirements, but for a simple read operation, these are sufficient. The description provides key behavioral traits beyond what annotations might have covered.

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: a main sentence, use case, sibling reference, read-only and limit statements, followed by an Args/Returns section. It is concise but not sparse. The pseudo-docstring format adds clarity though some information (like read-only) is repeated. Overall, it uses space efficiently and is easy to parse.

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's low complexity (3 optional parameters, no required, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, parameters, return structure, and limits. The output schema exists, so detailed return description isn't needed, but the description still outlines the output. The sibling differentiation also adds contextual completeness. There are no gaps that would hinder an AI agent from using the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with explanations: file_created_after and file_created_before get ISO date examples, and is_favorite is described as 'If true, only return favorites.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, which only provides types and defaults. The descriptions are clear but could be slightly more detailed (e.g., date inclusivity), hence a 4.

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: 'Get GPS map markers for all geotagged assets.' It includes specific use cases (discover photo locations, build travel maps) and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_metadata' by noting that the sibling is for city/country searches. This provides a clear, specific verb+resource combination with sibling differentiation.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this to discover where photos were taken or to build travel maps. For searching by city/country name, use search_metadata instead.' This clearly states when to use the tool and when not to, with an alternative tool named, fulfilling the usage guidelines dimension fully.

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