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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds information annotations cannot carry: the entitlement requirement and where to read about it, plus an indication that results are aggregated as counts rather than raw items. Return format details beyond that are absent, which is acceptable for a single-parameter read.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the purpose stated first and the access requirement second. The opening phrasing 'Where every play and move in your Blueprint stands' is idiomatic rather than literal, which costs a little precision but not length.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, the optional scoping parameter's handling, and the access prerequisite. The one remaining gap is disambiguation from the plan and evidence siblings.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains blueprint_id comes from list_my_blueprints and is optional when the address has one Blueprint. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource (Blueprint) and specifies the payload in concrete terms: status of every play and move with counts of done, in progress, and not started. That is clearly a status-read tool and implicitly distinct from update_blueprint_progress and get_blueprint_item_evidence, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 supplies a real usage prerequisite -- a key whose plan includes the DIY Blueprint feature, with a documentation URL -- which tells the agent when the call will fail. It gives no guidance, however, on when to choose this over get_my_blueprint_plan or get_blueprint_item_evidence, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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