get_map_markers

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It identifies the tool as a read operation and mentions output fields, but omits details like pagination limits, coordinate system (e.g., WGS84), or whether all markers are returned when no filters are applied.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, one for use case, and a brief parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no 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 tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it lacks mention of behavioral constraints like result limits, ordering, or coordinate system. For a geographic tool, this is a notable gap, though the basic purpose and parameter semantics are covered.

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 adds crucial meaning to parameters. It explains 'file_created_after' and 'file_created_before' as 'Optional ISO date filter' with an example, and 'is_favorite' as 'Filter favorites only', which goes beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('GPS map markers from the library'), and what is returned ('asset IDs with lat/lon coordinates'). It also provides a use case ('discover all geographic locations'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools, none of which are map-related.

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 implies usage for geographic discovery but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. It lists optional parameters but provides no guidance on when to apply them or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.

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