Static Map Render

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a reduced burden. It adds the behavioral detail that the tool returns a PNG image, which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions; the description is consistent with the read-only nature.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

While the schema is rich, the description does not explicitly mention the output_format parameter or the need to match parameters with render_type. However, with full schema coverage, the description adequately covers the high-level mapping capabilities. It lacks mention of the output format details beyond PNG.

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 100%, with the input schema providing extensive explanations for each parameter. The tool description itself does not add new parameter meaning beyond summarizing the render types. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 renders visual map images of routes, isochrones, round-trips, and static locations, and returns a PNG image. This verb+resource combination immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like interactive_map (interactive) or isochrone_calculator (data only).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as route_planner or round_trip, which might be more appropriate for pure calculation without rendering.

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