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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the specific error TERRITORY_POLYGONS_WITHOUT_PART_IDS, the part-assignment fallback via part_layer + overlay_policy=centroid_within, and the return of ts_handle.

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 purpose and return values in the first sentence, then layers input forms and behavior. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; only the Designer project path sentence feels marginally bolted-on.

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 spelled out, and the description still summarizes them. Input options, a key error condition, and the part-assignment workflow are covered, making it sufficiently complete for a 7-parameter import tool.

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 carry the load, and it names all seven parameters with meaning: geojson object, geojson_text, geojson_gzip (base64), point_layer, tal_label, part_layer, and overlay_policy. Only overlay_policy's full value set and geojson's object shape remain under-specified.

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 (opens/imports) and resource (GeoJSON FeatureCollection) plus the outcome (a Territory Solution with ts_handle and summary). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling export_geojson (the inverse) and from create_territory_from_parts.

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 input selection (plain points vs. a server-produced territory file, gzip/zip, and the EasyTerritory Designer project case that must use geojson_gzip). It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over create_territory_from_parts or other build tools, so no explicit exclusions.

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