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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the exact-vs-heuristic cutover, that it returns an exact flag and stopping reason, and a hard limitation ('geometric distances only: no roads, traffic or travel-time forecasts'). This is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not quantify the time_budget effect.

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 core ordering constraint is front-loaded, followed by metric semantics, algorithm behaviour, and output content in a logical order. It is dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the only mild excess is restating return fields already covered by the output schema.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers inputs (metric, point count, return flag), algorithmic guarantees/limits, and domain restrictions, which is nearly everything needed to call it correctly. The unaddressed time_budget_ms semantics is the one remaining 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%, so the description must compensate. It defines the metric semantics precisely (planar kilometres vs great-circle on a 6371.0088 km sphere) and clarifies the point-count range and fixed start index. It does not explicitly explain time_budget_ms, leaving one of four parameters undocumented beyond its schema default.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Order 2–256 supplied points from fixed start index 0, with an optional return.' No sibling tool (optimize_tasks, build_robust_plan, plan_mission) does geometric point ordering, so the agent can distinguish it immediately without opening the schema.

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 states the algorithmic selection rule (exact Held–Karp at ≤13 points, heuristics above) and that it is 'callable independently of the orchestrator,' which implies usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling tools like optimize_tasks or build_robust_plan, nor any when-not conditions.

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