hh_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable orientation context ('you are here', 'orients you fast') and usage hints, but doesn't describe the output format beyond the output schema's existence. It could mention whether the map is static or dynamic, but the added context is still useful.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage, the third gives a recommendation. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 the tool's role as an orientation map, the description is complete: it tells the agent what it gets, how to call it, and why to call it. With an output schema present, return details needn't be explained. The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and usage.

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: it explains that the single parameter 'entity' is optional (call with no args) and provides examples ('reviews', 'stocks/prices/orders'). It doesn't list all possible entities or mention the default value (empty string), but it gives enough to use the parameter correctly.

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 what the tool does: it provides a map of business entities and the go-to methods for each. It distinguishes itself from siblings like hh_search_methods or hh_describe_method by being a high-level orientation tool ('the big picture'). The verb+resource is specific: 'map' (verb) of 'business entities and methods' (resource).

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this before guessing — it orients you fast.' It also gives concrete usage patterns: call with no args to see the whole map, or pass entity='reviews' to list methods of one entity. This provides clear alternatives to other discovery tools like hh_search_methods.

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