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

Goes beyond annotations with concrete behavior: a partial result object returns INVALID_REQUEST, dismiss=true hides the dock while retaining statistics, and it changes nothing in the Territory Solution. Annotations only declare the generic hint flags, so these additions carry real value; no mention of idempotency despite idempotentHint=false.

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 action and prerequisites, and each sentence adds distinct information (input requirements, modes, dismiss behavior, mutation scope, sibling routing). Slightly dense and run-on but no wasted filler.

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 an 8-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers inputs, error conditions, mode options, and side effects well. The undocumented roles/labels parameters and untested idempotency claim keep it from being fully complete.

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 compensate, and it documents map_session_id, task_id/job_id, the analyses/tal_analyses/ts_identity shape, dismiss semantics, and enumerates presentation_mode values (single, compare, executive, diagnostic). Only roles and labels go 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Shows a completed analyze result in the open map's analysis dock') and explicitly distinguishes the single vs compare display contexts. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like analyze, get_map_visualization, and set_map_state.

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?

States prerequisites (map_session_id plus task_id/job_id or full result) and routes the agent to an alternative path ('analyze with analysis_panel=single fills the dock in the same call'). It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to use this tool, but the context is clear.

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