crpt_map

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already supplied. The description adds useful behavioral context: no-arg behavior returns the full map, and passing entity returns every method of one entity. This clarifies output shape beyond annotations, though output schema already exists so return structure is partly 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?

Front-loaded with the big-picture purpose, then the two invocation modes, then a short usage prompt. Every clause earns its place with no filler, and the whole thing is scannable in a few lines.

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-param orientation tool with an output schema present, the description is appropriately complete: it explains both call modes and when to reach for it. It doesn't need to explain return values since an output schema exists, only minor gaps like full entity enumeration.

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 does so well: it explains that the single optional 'entity' parameter takes values like 'reviews', 'stocks', 'prices', 'orders', and that omitting it returns the whole map. That covers the meaning and usage of the only parameter, though it doesn't enumerate the full valid set.

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 clear purpose (a capabilities map / orientation tool) with a specific verb-resource framing: it shows business entities and the go-to methods for each. It's distinguishable from siblings like crpt_search_methods or crpt_describe_method, though the tool name 'crpt_map' alone is opaque. Purpose is clear but not fully differentiated by name.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Use this before guessing — it orients you fast,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (early exploration). It doesn't name a specific alternative tool to use instead when you already know the entity, but the 'before guessing' framing implies the alternative is to call a more specific method.

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