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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context those annotations cannot: an authorization/entitlement requirement tied to the key's plan and the per-item status field in the payload, which helps an agent interpret empty or partial results.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the access prerequisite. The first sentence is dense but every clause (item_id, action, timing, measurement, status) maps to a real payload field, so nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so field-by-field. The access prerequisite is also stated. Minor gaps remain around ordering/pagination and how many plays to expect, but an agent has enough to call this 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 coverage is 100% and blueprint_id is already documented as coming from list_my_blueprints and being optional when the address has only one Blueprint. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the schema carries this dimension entirely and a baseline 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 clearly states the resource returned: ranked strategy plays and 90-day moves, each with item_id, action, timing, measurement, and status. It is specific about content, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from get_blueprint_progress, which also surfaces per-item status, so the boundary between the two is left to inference.

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 a real usage precondition — a DIY Blueprint key whose plan includes these plays, with a link for details — which is valuable context. However, it never says when to choose this over get_blueprint_progress or get_blueprint_item_evidence, nor any when-not-to-use condition, so routing guidance is only implied.

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