Map Customer Touchpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's behavior is consistent. The description adds some context about what is mapped (trust-sensitive moments, automation-safe areas, etc.) beyond the annotations, but does not elaborate on non-obvious behaviors like data persistence or side effects. No contradiction.

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 sentence that efficiently lists the mapping outputs. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Maps' and is concise without extra words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but acceptable.

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 13 parameters and an output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks detail on how inputs affect outputs or typical use cases. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description could better guide agent on what to provide.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It lists the types of mapping output but does not relate parameters to those outputs.

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 it maps customer-facing workflow stages, trust-sensitive moments, etc., using a specific verb ('maps') and resource ('customer touchpoints'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'evaluate_ai_opportunities' and 'identify_bottlenecks' by focusing on mapping multiple types of touchpoint-related areas.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use. Sibling tools are provided in context but the description itself lacks usage context.

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