generate_markers_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing any behavior such as geocoding, network requirements, side effects, or failure modes. It does not contradict annotations (there are none), but the lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool without annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise: one declarative sentence followed by a concrete example. The purpose is front-loaded, and the example is directly useful for the agent. No filler words; every element earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It includes an example, clarifies the core action, and the schema covers all input semantics. Slight gaps remain, such as not referencing sibling tools for comparison or noting that place is optional, but the schema covers that. Overall, adequate for correct invocation.

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 documents both parameters (place and markers) and the Marker sub-schema explains label and link. The description adds an example but does not introduce additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is justified.

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: 'Generate a map with multiple pinned locations.' It uses a specific verb (generate) and resource (map), and the phrase 'multiple pinned locations' differentiates it from the likely single-location sibling tool generate_map. An example further clarifies the intended use.

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 implies usage for scenarios requiring multiple pins on a map, which distinguishes it from generate_map. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use (e.g., for a single location). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria, so a 4 is appropriate.

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