raw_map_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it names the exact return type (GeoJSON FeatureCollection) and flags the unprocessed 'raw' nature of the data, which matters given there is no output schema. It omits authentication, rate-limit, and data-freshness context, keeping it short of a 5.

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, zero filler, with the core return value front-loaded and the optional parameter qualification second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-shape information that the schema and annotations cannot. It lacks only peripheral operational detail, so it is nearly complete.

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%, so the single parameter is already documented. The description restates the same 'optional historic day (YYYY-MM-DD)' information without adding format edge cases, range limits, or defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return'), the exact resource ('raw Avalanche.org map-layer GeoJSON FeatureCollection'), and the scope ('all avalanche centers'), which distinguishes it from the sibling raw_map_layer_by_avalanche_center that scopes to a single center.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'all avalanche centers' scope hints at when to pick this over the by-center sibling, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it, when to avoid it, or how it relates to the danger-rating siblings.

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