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 richly: async task_id pattern, that the result carries geojson_artifact {artifact_id, bytes} plus download_url requiring a Bearer API key, that there is never an inline multi-MB body, zip defaulting to gzip, and that styling ('paint') travels with the export. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs.

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-loaded with the core purpose and scope, and dense but most sentences carry real information (async contract, artifact shape, Designer integration). It is somewhat overloaded with tangent detail (Designer REST/Agent/Projects endpoints) that burdens the core instruction.

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 10-param, annotation-free tool, the description covers sourcing, filtering, output format, download mechanics, and downstream reopen/import workflows. An output schema exists, yet the extra return-shape prose reinforces rather than pads, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 must compensate, and it explains tal_ids/point_layers/route_layers scoping, zip=true/false semantics, include_points/include_routes toggles, and the three alternative source params. Only guidance_handle is left unexplained, so it nearly but not fully closes the coverage 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 ('export'/'Materialize') and resource ('working GeoJSON FeatureCollection — territory polygons with part_ids, point features, and route paths + numbered stops'), and explicitly positions itself as 'the only Territory Solution export', distinguishing it from siblings. An agent knows exactly what it produces without opening the 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?

Names prerequisites (ts_handle, completed build job_id, or map_session_id), states the 'omit tal_ids/point_layers/route_layers for the full project' rule, and routes reopen flows to import_geojson and get_map_visualization. The async follow-up (Tasks next_action/sleep_ms) gives concrete when-and-how guidance.

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