sbis_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 real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses both the zero-arg and entity-arg modes and characterizes the returned content ('whole map', 'list every method'). No info on ordering or size limits, but this is solid additional value.

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 core purpose, then the two invocation modes, then a routing directive. Parenthetical asides are minor; every sentence carries weight. Slightly informal but efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple one-param, read-only orientation tool, the description covers purpose, both modes, and when to use it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the single entity parameter, and it does: it explains the empty/default case and gives concrete example values (reviews, stocks, prices, orders). It doesn't enumerate the full valid set, but it compensates well for the undocumented 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 states a specific function: mapping the business entities the API covers and the go-to methods for each. An agent can tell this is an orientation/discovery tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling discovery tools like sbis_search_methods or sbis_list_sections, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Clear invocation guidance: call with no args for the full map, or pass entity="reviews" (etc.) to list one entity's methods. 'Use this before guessing — it orients you fast' gives when-to-use context. It lacks an explicit comparison to the other lookup siblings (search_methods, describe_method), so not a 5.

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