vk_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: what calling with no args returns (the whole map, 'you are here') and what passing an entity returns (every method of that entity). No auth or rate-limit detail, but for a read-only discovery call this is informative.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the purpose, then the two call modes, then the payoff. No filler, and the most important orientation cue ('you are here') is placed early.

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 shape need not be restated. For a low-complexity, parameterless-by-default discovery tool the description covers both invocation modes and its positioning. Only the relationship to the other discovery siblings is left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single entity param. It explains both modes: empty/no-arg returns the full map, while entity="reviews" (or stocks/prices/orders) scopes to one entity's methods, with concrete example values the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific resource ('business entities this API covers and the go-to methods for each') with the verb of discovery implied by 'see the whole map'. An agent can tell it is an orientation/map tool, distinct from the action siblings like vk_call_method. It does not explicitly name which discovery sibling it supersedes (vk_list_sections, vk_search_methods), so it falls 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?

'Use this before guessing — it orients you fast' gives a clear condition for when to reach for it, and the no-arg vs entity= usage is spelled out. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. vs vk_search_methods) are provided, keeping it from a 5.

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