Get iNavi Map Example HTML

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full metadata and HTML template code, allows customization of data values, but warns against modifying iNavi API constructors or adding options. It does not explicitly mention read-only nature but 'retrieve' implies non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the mere function definition.

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?

The description is fairly long but well-structured with clear sections (PREREQUISITE, USAGE, CUSTOMIZATION, IMPORTANT). It front-loads the purpose. While it could be slightly more concise, the structure aids readability for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers all necessary context: prerequisites, usage, customization rules, and when to use. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% for the single 'id' parameter. The description adds meaning by providing example ID format ('e.g., marker-basic') and that the ID comes from list_map_examples. This adds value beyond the schema description.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve a specific iNavi Maps HTML example by ID with complete metadata.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining how it differs from list_map_examples (browsing vs. retrieval) and from get_api_spec (different resource type).

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?

Explicitly states prerequisite: 'Use list_map_examples first to browse available examples and get the ID.' Provides usage instruction and when to use this tool over alternatives: 'Unless the user explicitly requests another map provider... use this tool for visualization requests.'

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