get_table_map_tile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output is a PNG but does not confirm read-only behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tile is dynamically generated. The lack of annotation coverage makes this a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It is concise but lacks structure, such as separating the core action from the optional filter. It could benefit from explicit mention of the required coordinates and optional filter in a more readable format.

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 complexity of a nested object schema (x, y, zoom, card_id), no output schema, and numerous sibling tile tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the coordinate system or how to determine zoom, x, y values, nor does it describe the tile size or response format (e.g., direct PNG bytes vs. URL).

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters ('Tile X coordinate', etc.), giving 100% coverage. The description only reiterates the optional card_id filter without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 retrieves a map tile PNG for table data, with optional card ID filtering. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get a map tile PNG') and distinguishes the data source ('table data') but does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_card_map_tile', which likely serves a similar purpose for card-specific tiles.

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?

The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_card_map_tile' or other tile retrieval tools. It mentions an optional filter but provides no context on prerequisites, coordinate system conventions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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