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

The description claims 'Idempotent per user_id: a second call returns the same map,' but the annotations declare idempotentHint=false, a direct conflict on the same property. Despite otherwise rich disclosure (destructive new_project, host-dependent rendering, session handoff), this contradiction of an annotation is flagged.

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 action and return values, then layers in sourcing, idempotency, and host behavior. Dense but every clause carries information, though the run-on accumulation of distinct facts slightly hurts scanability.

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?

Given a complex host-dependent tool with 10 params and an output schema (so return values needn't be detailed), the description still names map_url/map_session_id and covers rendering, session reuse, and destructive new_project. Four parameters remain undocumented, leaving a modest gap.

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% (10 undocumented params), so the description must compensate and does so well: it explains ts, ts_handle, job_id, user_id, new_project, and the presentation.view_name enum values (empty | points_only | review | selection). It leaves mode, active_tal_id, expiry_seconds, and interaction_flags unexplained.

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 ('Opens the interactive territory map (Map Component)') and names its outputs (map_url, map_session_id). It differentiates itself from siblings by noting that 'Later map tools take map_session_id' and citing ensure_map_viewer as the status reporter.

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 the two modes: opening a blank map, or resurfacing the latest state of an existing Territory Solution via ts, ts_handle, or a completed job_id, and explains new_project=true. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a fuller alternative-tool routing.

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