generate_markers_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states what the tool does ('generate a map') and not how it behaves: geocoding labels, auto-completing missing links via Places API, side effects, or output format. The example hints at optional link behavior, but behavioral traits are largely undisclosed.

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?

One leading purpose sentence followed by a compact example; no filler or repeated schema text. It is front-loaded and 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 3-param tool with full schema coverage, the description plus example is nearly sufficient to invoke, but it lacks any selection guidance against siblings and any behavioral detail such as geocoding/auto-completion. The absence of annotations and output schema raises the burden, leaving moderate gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a concrete invocation example showing the markers array with label and optional link, including a marker without a link. This demonstrates the expected JSON structure and mixed-optionality beyond the schema's formal definitions.

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 names a specific action ('Generate a map') and the distinguishing feature ('multiple pinned locations'), so an agent can tell it apart from route/generic map tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'multiple pinned locations' implies this is for multi-point map requests, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose it over generate_map, generate_route_map, or the download variants. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named, so the agent must infer usage from the name and single line.

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