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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares synchronous execution (no task_id), the CLARIFICATION_REQUIRED/needs_dwell failure mode for unresolved dwell, and the FACTS-ONLY contract (no capacity, headroom, ranking, or overloaded flag). It also warns against summing/comparing its hours with cluster/territory workload figures, which is behavior beyond any structured field.

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?

Front-loads the When/Prerequisites and sequences the guidance logically, and nearly every sentence adds decision-relevant content. It is nonetheless dense and long, with some quantity-distinction caveats that verge on repetition, so it stops just short of optimal concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still clarifies the workload math and quantity meanings where they could be misused. For a fact-reporting tool with 5 inputs and no required params, every decision-relevant piece an agent needs is present.

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 0% across 5 params, so the description must compensate. It does explain map_session_id vs ts_handle ('map_session_id preferred') and dwell_time semantics (one dwell per stop, charged twice for a circuit), but route_ids is only touched obliquely and guidance_handle is never explained, so it only partially fills the gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('per-route numbers for routes calculate_route already drew') and enumerates exactly what it returns: drive hours, dwell hours, route_workload_hours, stop coordinates, centroid, bbox. It explicitly differentiates itself from the analyze sibling ('analyze is TAL/part-grained') and from territory/cluster workload quantities, so an agent can place it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit 'When' trigger with concrete example questions, states prerequisites (a route must exist; dwell confirmed unless already stored), and lists anti-patterns ('do NOT call analyze for routes', 'do NOT feed these hours into auto_build, territory_rebalance'). It also names the correct follow-up path (re-run calculate_route with the route_id) and a scenario code, leaving nothing to inference.

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