download_map

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does this well: it explains that the tool waits internally, checks periodically, returns immediately if ready, and may return before readiness, requiring a subsequent call. This is valuable, non-obvious behavior that an agent must know to use the tool correctly.

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: main purpose first, then conditional behavior, then retry instruction, then a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail or fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: what to pass, what to expect, and how to handle retries. It doesn't describe response formats or error conditions, but those are not critical given the polling semantics and the presence of only one parameter.

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 schema already documents data_key at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by providing a concrete example and emphasizing that the same dataKey must be reused on retry, which clarifies parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Check a pending generate_* job and download it once ready.' It specifies the resource (map) and the workflow stage (post-generation), distinguishing it from the generate_* siblings by focusing on downloading/checking rather than creating.

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 strong usage context: use it after a generate_* call returns a dataKey, and if the job isn't ready, call it again with the same dataKey. It doesn't explicitly contrast with redownload_map, so no direct exclusions or alternative routing is provided, but the intended workflow is clear.

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