Get map

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and discloses a non-obvious behavioral default: raw coordinate/outline data is omitted by default, with a rationale and explicit opt-in via includePositions. It does not describe error or matching behavior, but for a read-style lookup this is solid transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the most important behavioral caveat. The examples and the explanation for excluding raw coordinates all earn their place without padding.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent what the response contains, what is excluded by default, and how to get the excluded data. For a single-map detail lookup, nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining includePositions in behavioral terms and giving realistic idOrName examples. It also clarifies what response content the tool returns, which helps the agent map parameters to expected output.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get detail for one map by id or name') with concrete examples ('Customs', 'Factory'), and enumerates the content returned: extracts, hazards, boss spawn chances and zones, transits, access requirements. The singular scope distinguishes it from sibling list_maps without needing to name it.

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 clearly frames when the tool is appropriate: retrieving details for a single map by id or name, and it explains when to add coordinate data by setting includePositions. It does not explicitly name list_maps or other alternatives, so it misses a full when/when-not routing statement.

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