Generate map (GeoJSON)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the output is a static FeatureCollection of centroids with point size as the encoding channel, which tells the agent what can and cannot be done with the result. It omits any note on limits or cost, but nothing contradicts the 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (the output format) is front-loaded before the viewer hints and the parameter note.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and all five optional params are fully documented in the schema. The description covers the conceptual shape of the output and the by semantics; it could go slightly further on defaults (latest year, top 25) but those live in the schema.

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%, so the schema already defines all five parameters including the by enum and locale. The description restates the by semantics ('asylum' maps host countries, 'origin' maps origins) without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the precise artifact produced (a GeoJSON FeatureCollection of country centroid points, sized by a displacement metric), which is a specific verb+resource rather than a restatement of the name. That output form also implicitly separates it from sibling generators like generate_chart and generate_country_report.

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?

It gives downstream consumption guidance ('drop it into any GeoJSON viewer — geojson.io, Leaflet, Kepler') and disambiguates the by enum, but never states when to pick this over generate_chart or compare_countries. Usage is implied by the output type rather than stated as a selection rule.

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