sbis_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds behavioral detail beyond the annotation: calling with no args shows the whole map, passing an entity filters to that entity's methods. It also conveys the tool's non-destructive, orientation-focused nature without contradicting the read-only hint.

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 sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('The big picture') and then gives actionable usage instructions and an example. Every word contributes value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains both call patterns and the orientation purpose. It could mention that the output is a list of methods or entities, but the output schema presumably covers that. It also could reference related sibling tools, but the description's 'before guessing' guidance sufficiently sets expectations.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden of explaining the 'entity' parameter. It does so thoroughly: no args yields the full map, and passing a value like 'reviews' lists all methods for that entity. It also provides illustrative examples of valid values. This fully compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 role as a map of business entities and the go-to methods for each, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as an orientation tool ('you are here') and giving concrete examples like entity="reviews". The purpose is unmistakable and not a tautology.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this before guessing — it orients you fast.' It explains both invocation modes (no args vs. entity argument) and implies it is the first step before other tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or 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.