vk_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral details: the 'you are here' metaphor, the two modes, and the entity filtering behavior. It doesn't contradict annotations. It could mention that output is a list/overview, but the output schema exists, and the read-only nature is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotation.

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 sentences, no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded ('The big picture'), then usage is explained with examples. Every word adds value; it's well-structured and immediately actionable.

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 tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to invoke it in both modes, what it returns, and when to use it. 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the entity parameter. It does: it's optional ('call with no args'), takes values like 'reviews', 'stocks', 'prices', 'orders', and filters the map to one entity's methods. This goes well beyond the bare schema definition of a string with a default.

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 purpose: providing the big picture of business entities and go-to methods. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by being a map/orientation tool, with specific behavior described. Not a tautology; it adds concrete detail.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this before guessing' and describes two call modes: no args for the whole map, and entity='...' for listing methods of one entity. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly tells when not to use it (when you already know the method). It also provides examples of entity values.

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