export_interactive_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses side effects (optional 'save HTML directly to disk'), output form ('Confirmation JSON with file path and status, or HTML content preview'), and expected output characteristics. It does not discuss overwrite behavior or permissions, but for a generation/export tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 purpose sentence, a short feature list, an Args block, and a Returns block. It is not overly long, but the feature bullets (especially 'dark titanium glassmorphic UI overlay') are more promotional than necessary for tool invocation. Still, every section earns a place in helping the agent understand behavior.

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 five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers all essential invocation details: required vs optional args, coordinate format, GeoJSON source, and return behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be deeply explained. Missing context is mainly the effect of hazard_type on rendering and any file overwrite semantics, but an agent can call this 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 entirely, and it does. It gives the exact bbox order ([min_lon, min_lat, max_lon, max_lat]), states WGS84, provides a title example, explains that geojson comes from eo-mcp hazard tools, lists example hazard_type values, and clarifies output_html_path's purpose. This is strong parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a standalone interactive MapLibre GL JS HTML application from hazard results.' This clearly identifies both the action and the output. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling export_geolibre_project, so it stops short of full 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 states that the tool generates maps 'from hazard results' and accepts GeoJSON 'from any eo-mcp hazard tool,' which implies when it should be used. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as export_geolibre_project.

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