ym_map

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals safety; the description adds behavioral detail about the no-args vs entity-argument branching and the 'you are here' orientation value. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise, information-dense sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by usage examples and a clear directive. No wasted words.

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 read-only map with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary invocation context: what it does, when to use, and how arguments change behavior. Nothing critical 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?

The schema provides no description for the 'entity' parameter, but the description compensates by explaining its purpose with concrete examples and the default behavior. It doesn't fully enumerate valid entity values, but the map itself can provide that.

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 clearly states the tool's role as a high-level map of business entities and their go-to methods, with specific usage variants. It distinguishes itself from sibling action tools (call/write/delete) by framing the tool as the 'big picture' orientation 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?

Offers explicit guidance: call with no args for the whole map, or pass entity to list methods for one entity, and instructs to use it before guessing. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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