hh_map

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains the output for no args ('the whole map') and with an entity ('list every method of one entity'). It also hints at the output structure ('you are here') and the utility as an orientation aid. This adds meaningful context about how the tool behaves without contradicting the annotations.

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 two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded ('The big picture...') and usage details in the second. Every clause earns its place, providing purpose, behavior, and usage guidance without redundancy.

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 simple one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, the parameter's behavior, and when to use it. It doesn't detail the output format or error handling, but the output schema covers the structure, and for a read-only map tool, this is sufficient. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens with an invalid entity, but these are not critical.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'entity' parameter, but the description compensates by explaining its effect: passing an entity filters the map to that entity's methods, and omitting it returns the whole map. It gives concrete examples ('reviews' or stocks/prices/orders) and clarifies the optional nature. This meaningfully adds to the schema.

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 tool's function: it provides 'the big picture: business entities this API covers and the go-to methods for each.' It differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as an orientation/discovery tool, explicitly saying 'Use this before guessing.' The optional entity parameter is explained, distinguishing it from listing or execution tools.

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 gives a direct usage guideline: 'Use this before guessing — it orients you fast.' It also demonstrates usage patterns: calling with no args for the whole map, or passing an entity to list methods for that entity. While it doesn't name specific sibling tools as alternatives, the intent is clear that this is for initial orientation rather than specific operations.

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