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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description usefully adds the lifecycle state machine (awaiting_user_selection/committed/expired/cancelled), the polling cadence hint, and the TAL assigned-vs-unassigned distinction, all of which go beyond the structured safety flags.

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 dense with useful detail, but the parenthetical nesting and colon-delimited lists make it a single heavy sentence that is denser than ideal. Every clause still carries signal, so no trimming is obviously safe.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description covers the state machine, polling, and downstream usage. It stops short of distinguishing this tool from the similarly named get_map_selection sibling, which is the remaining ambiguity.

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% and the single parameter has no schema description, but the description compensates by stating where selection_task_id comes from (output of request_part_selection or active_selection_task_id in ezt://map-sessions/{id}/state), which is meaning the bare schema does not provide.

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 ('Returns the state of a map selection task') and enumerates the exact status values it can return, so the agent knows precisely what it retrieves. It differentiates from the producing sibling request_part_selection by naming it as the source of the id, and names realign, create_territory_from_parts, and analyze as downstream consumers of a committed result.

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 explains how to obtain selection_task_id (from request_part_selection or active_selection_task_id in session state) and signals polling via recommended_poll_delay_ms while awaiting, plus what to do with committed part_ids. It gives clear context but never explicitly excludes the confusable sibling get_map_selection.

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