check_map_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool checks job completion, downloads when finished, and that redundant generate_map calls create duplicate jobs. However, it does not describe what happens when the job is not finished (e.g., return status) or any side effects of downloading, which prevents a perfect score.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose immediately, and the second paragraph delivers crucial usage guidance without fluff. Every sentence adds value, and the text is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain parameter meanings or return/result behavior beyond 'download it if so.' It gives strong usage context but leaves significant gaps about what the tool returns and how the optional parameters affect the download, making it incomplete for an agent to use properly.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'dataKey' conceptually but never explains the parameter names or their roles. The optional parameters (format, color_set, canvas_width, canvas_height) are completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations.

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's purpose: 'Check whether a still-in-progress generate_map job has finished, and download it if so.' This identifies a specific verb+resource and differentiates it from siblings like generate_map (which starts jobs) and redownload_map (which presumably re-downloads an existing map).

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 provides explicit usage constraints: 'Only call this after generate_map reports it is still processing and gives you a dataKey to check.' It also gives timing guidance ('Wait about 20-30 seconds between calls'), warns against tight polling loops, and explicitly says not to call generate_map again for the same location while pending. This is outstanding when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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