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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose important traits: it is a mandatory gate, requires a prior session id, unblocks the rest of the pipeline, and works identically across in-chat and map_url surfaces over SSE. It does not say what happens on timeout/failure or how wait_seconds/poll_interval_ms affect blocking, which is a real gap for a gating tool.

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 most decision-relevant information (When/Prerequisites/Next) in a labeled, scannable structure with no filler sentences. It loses a point for opaque references ('Tier 1 — MC-First Gate', 'Scenarios: MV-001, I-1') that add tokens without conveying meaning to an agent.

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 needn't be described, and the description supplies prerequisites, sequencing, and surface behavior adequate to call the tool correctly. The main shortfall is the untouched parameter semantics, which leaves timing behavior (wait_seconds, poll_interval_ms) undefined.

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% across all 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only identifies the origin of map_session_id (from get_map_visualization); wait_seconds, poll_interval_ms, and guidance_handle are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving their timing/behavioral effect ambiguous.

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 places the tool precisely in a workflow (a Tier 1 gate that runs after get_map_visualization and before compute/build/analyze/selection work), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like configure_map or analyze. The specific action (verifying/awaiting a connected human viewer) is implied by the name and the 'Next: ... once viewer_status.connected' phrase but never stated outright, and 'MC-First Gate' is opaque jargon.

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?

Explicit When, Prerequisites, and Next clauses define exactly when to invoke it and what condition (viewer_status.connected) releases the workflow. It also gives a clear exclusion — 'Do not skip it on an Apps host' — and names the follow-on tools (ingest, configure_map, build, realign, analyze).

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