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

Annotations declare the safety profile (not readOnly, not destructive, not idempotent, not open-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the operation returns a task whose result is geojson_artifact plus a download_url, the download is a GET requiring the API key, and the payload is gzip unless zip=false rather than an inline body. These async-task and auth/gzip details are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs and are not derivable from the annotations.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and most sentences carry distinct information (contents, filters, inputs, return/download mechanics). It is a dense run-on block that could be split for readability, but there is little waste.

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 nine-parameter export tool, the description covers inputs, filtering flags, the output artifact shape, and the download mechanism. An output schema already exists, yet the description still usefully explains the task/download return path, leaving no material gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry all nine parameters, and it largely does: zip controls gzip, tal_ids/point_layers/route_layers narrow the output, include_points/include_routes drop a family, and map_session_id / ts_handle / a completed build job_id are the accepted inputs. The only shortfall is that it groups the three narrowing ids under a generic 'narrow it' without saying which filters territories versus points versus routes.

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 (exports the territory solution as one GeoJSON file) and enumerates exactly what is included: territory polygons with part_ids, points, and routes with numbered stops carrying displayed style. It also names the companion tool import_geojson, so an agent can distinguish this export from its sibling 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 clear context for when to reach for it (to share, archive, or open in EasyTerritory Designer) and notes that import_geojson reopens the file, establishing the export/import pairing. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-routing guidance, but no competing export sibling exists, so the context is adequate.

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