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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. 'Read-only keyword routing; no compute' plus the 'null when the request is ambiguous' note add real behavioral value, but the long recital of return fields duplicates the existing output schema rather than disclosing new behavior.

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?

Core purpose and the read-only/no-compute constraint are correctly front-loaded. However, one very long sentence mixes a return-field inventory (redundant with the output schema) into what should be a routing catalog, and the topic enumeration could be trimmed.

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 router tool with an output schema, the description need not detail return values, and it does convey which capabilities it can route to. The gap is the undocumented `context` parameter, which matters more given 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies user_request as a 'free-text territory request' with examples of expected phrasing, but the optional `context` object parameter is never mentioned anywhere, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 and resource: it maps a free-text territory request onto a workflow, and it names the mechanism ('Read-only keyword routing; no compute'). The enumeration of covered domains (build, edit, analyze, geocoding, schedules, coverage) makes it unmistakable which sibling capabilities it fronts.

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 establishes the routing role clearly enough that an agent knows to call it first on an ambiguous free-text request, and it names the categories it can route to. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (workflow_advisor, get_guidance) or stating when a direct tool call is preferable over discovery.

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