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

The description adds a key non-obvious behavior: 'Nothing reaches a visitor until action=publish', which is not derivable from the annotations or schema alone. The annotations already mark the tool destructive and not read-only, and the description does not contradict that; it adds workflow context about publishing.

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?

The description is compact and each sentence contributes: concept, distinction, first action, creation boundary, and publish requirement. It is somewhat conceptual in the opening, but not wasteful; the key operational instruction is included.

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 12-parameter tool with multiple action modes, the description complements the rich schema by explaining the core workflow and the publish gate. It does not explain every action, but the schema describes those in detail, and no output schema is expected. The description is sufficient for an agent to start correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond orienting the agent to actions like list and publish, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly identifies the resource as dealer territories and distinguishes it from service radius: a territory decides which dealer an enquiry belongs to, while a service radius measures reach. It does not use a direct verb like 'manage' or 'configure', but the intent is evident and it differentiates from the sibling location tools.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use action=list first', which is a concrete usage guideline. It also states where the tool is and is not applicable: postcode territories are built here, while polygons and regions are drawn on the dashboard map. This gives clear context without naming sibling alternatives explicitly.

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