Get iNavi Map Example HTML

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return content (metadata and HTML template), customization limitations (only data values), and prohibition on modifying API options. Does not mention error handling or auth, but adequate for a retrieval tool.

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?

Description is lengthy but well-structured: front-loads purpose, then prerequisite, usage, and warnings. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps identified.

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 provides id with description and example, achieving 100% coverage. Description adds significant value: explains how to obtain the id via list_map_examples, and includes customization warnings that add meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('iNavi Maps HTML example'), and the criteria ('by ID with complete metadata'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_map_examples by stating it retrieves a specific example, and differentiates from other map providers.

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 provides prerequisite ('Use list_map_examples first'), usage instruction ('Provide the example ID'), and when-to-use guidance ('Unless the user explicitly requests another map provider... use this tool').

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