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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only flag non-readOnly, destructive, non-idempotent). It discloses the UNDECLARED_FIELD error path, the CLARIFICATION_REQUIRED behavior with the specific missing inputs, the async 'returns a task' contract, that never_visit_values are excluded, and that bucket_workload_hours is a distinct measure from territory/route workload.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action leads, then requirements, errors, and edge-case distinctions follow. Given 20 parameters it is economical, though the parenthetical-laden run-on style makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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, it correctly omits return-value detail (aside from noting it returns a task). For a complex, 20-param, destructive scheduling tool it covers the critical prerequisites, failure modes, and sibling distinctions, but the unaddressed optional parameters leave a real 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 description coverage is 0% across 20 params, so the description carries the full burden. It meaningfully documents point_layer, visit_frequency_field, dwell_time, daily_capacity, contractors, frequency_unit, never_visit_values, and visit_constraints/horizon_start_date, but leaves ts, horizon, objective, ts_handle, map_session_id, schedule_label, emit_visit_layer, visit_layer_name, expected_revision, max_buckets_per_day, and cadence_flexibility_pct unexplained — roughly half the surface.

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 (schedules recurring visits), then specifies the mechanism: expanding each account's cadence across a horizon and packing visits into daily buckets under a technician-day cap. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by noting that auto_build and cluster_points divide accounts among people instead.

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 conditions and prerequisites: point_layer must be ingested with the cadence column declared, and missing dwell or capacity yields CLARIFICATION_REQUIRED with the question. It also routes follow-up work ('calculate_route over one bucket_id drives that day') and contrasts with auto_build/cluster_points, though it stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives rule.

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