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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the non-regression baseline, the NO_IMPROVING_REBALANCE_FOUND outcome, CLARIFICATION_REQUIRED vs in-band prompting (HITL-025), and points to solver_diagnostics for objectives/convergence. It omits mutation/destructive semantics, permission requirements, and any rate/limit behavior.

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?

Information density is high and largely relevant, but it is delivered as one long, jargon-saturated block (MDR, TAL, MC, TS, RB-001..005) rather than a front-loaded summary followed by detail. Several clauses are packed into single sentences, making it hard to scan quickly.

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 a 14-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers invocation modes, prerequisites, non-regression behavior, failure/clarification paths, and follow-up steps, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. The outstanding gap is the undocumented parameters and no explicit statement of whether the operation mutates state.

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 14 parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains map_session_id, source_tal_id, ts_handle, objective/dwell_time, point_layer and part_layer, but leaves new_tal_label, repair_policy, balance_tolerance, disruption_weight, visit_frequency_field and guidance_handle entirely 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?

The tier label 'Minimal-Disruption Rebalance' plus 'alignment should stay close to current' makes the operation understandable: it recomputes a territory alignment while minimizing disruption. The resource (territory/TAL alignment) and behavior are clear, though the description never states the verb plainly and does not name siblings like realign or territory_split to sharpen the distinction.

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?

It gives an explicit 'When' condition (account data changed but alignment should stay near current), mode-specific invocation guidance (Open MC preferred args vs Headless paths), and prerequisites (source TAL, refreshed point_layer, viewer connected). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the alternative tool for larger-disruption realignment.

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