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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write-without-destruction profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful model that a plan is either a flat fee, a split with an annual cap, or a combination — but says nothing about duplicate plans, validation failures, or what is returned on success.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the prerequisite is front-loaded and the entity definition follows. The leading parenthetical is slightly awkward but costs almost nothing and conveys required context.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the prerequisite and the conceptual shape of the entity but leaves the interplay among kind, split percentages, caps and fees to the schema. Adequate to call it correctly, thin on what happens afterwards.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds only modest semantic glue by grouping 'flat_dues' with the monthly fee and 'split_cap' with the annual cap; it doesn't clarify how kind, transaction_fee_usd and post_cap_transaction_fee_usd interact, which is the genuinely ambiguous part of a 9-parameter schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Create a commission plan') and goes further by defining the domain object itself: a flat monthly fee and/or a split with an annual cap. An agent can distinguish this from update_plan/assign_plan/list_plans by the verb, though the description doesn't explicitly say so.

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?

The lead parenthetical states the prerequisite that workspace_key must come from create_workspace, which is real ordering guidance an agent needs before calling. It stops short of exclusions or pointing to update_plan for modifying an existing plan, so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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