wb_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral trait: the tool changes output based on whether an entity argument is provided, showing the whole map vs. one entity's methods. It does not describe return formatting, but an output schema exists, so that burden is already lifted.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first states the purpose, second explains the two invocation modes, third tells the agent when to use it. The 'you are here' and 'orients you fast' flourishes are brief and serve the orientation concept without bloat. Front-loaded and readable.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent how to get the big picture, how to drill into a specific entity, and when to reach for it. The ellipsis in the entity examples invites calling the tool itself to discover valid values, which is exactly how such a map tool should be used.

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 only says 'entity' is an optional string with a default of '', which is nearly meaningless. The description compensates by explaining that omitting it yields the full map and that values like 'reviews', 'stocks', 'prices', or 'orders' filter to one entity's methods. It gives useful examples, though it doesn't enumerate all valid values.

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 defines a specific purpose: an orientation map of the API's business entities with their go-to methods. It distinguishes this tool from sibling lookup tools like wb_search_methods and wb_describe_method by positioning it as the high-level 'you are here' overview. The verb-plus-resource structure ('Call with no args to see the whole map'; 'pass entity=... to list every method') leaves no ambiguity.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call it: 'Use this before guessing — it orients you fast.' It also gives two concrete usage modes: no args for the full map, and an entity value to focus on one entity. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it just misses a 5.

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