ym_map

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: no args returns the full map, an entity parameter filters to methods for that entity, and the map is designed for quick orientation ('you are here', 'orients you fast'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 purposeful, front-loaded sentences. Each adds value: the first states the tool's role, the second explains exactly how to call it, and the third gives a strong usage heuristic. No filler or repetition.

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, read-only, one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool is for, how to invoke both modes, and when to reach for it. Return-value details are already covered by the output schema, so no additional explanation is needed.

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%, but the description compensates well. It explains that the single optional parameter 'entity' selects a business entity ('reviews' or 'stocks/prices/orders/…') and that omitting it returns the whole map. It doesn't enumerate all valid values, but the open-ended '…' appropriately signals extensibility.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as a capabilities map for the API: 'The big picture: business entities this API covers and the go-to methods for each.' It also specifies exact behaviors (whole map vs. per-entity method listing), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ym_search_methods or ym_describe_method without needing to open them.

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?

Provides concrete usage guidance: 'Call with no args to see the whole map' and 'pass entity="reviews" ... to list every method of one entity.' It also advises when to use it: 'Use this before guessing.' It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or giving exclusion criteria, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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