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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, yet the description still adds real behavior: free of charge, no passport required, and that passport_token is accepted but ignored. It also previews return content (instructions, JSON Schema, worked example). It doesn't say what a no-stage call returns, which keeps it from a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and stage list, then the paid upsell. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the 'free, no passport needed' and buy pitch occupy space that could have covered the no-stage return behavior.

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 carries return-value burden and does so by naming the payload components. For a read-only two-param lookup this is nearly complete; only the behavior when stage is omitted is left unstated.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the stage enum order and the ignored passport_token. The description's 'Pass stage to get just one' restates the enum behavior but adds no syntax or edge-case meaning the schema lacks; 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?

States the resource precisely (the Project Blueprint method, six named planning stages) and what each stage yields (instructions, JSON Schema, worked example). The final sentence 'Pass stage to get just one' makes the scope distinction between the full method and single-stage reads explicit, separating it from siblings like blueprint_put_stage or blueprint_tasks.

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?

Explains when to use it ('You plan with your own model') and names the paid counterpart (buy project-blueprint) for validated stages, which gives the agent a clear selection criterion. It omits explicit when-not framing relative to blueprint_put_stage/delete_stage, but the read-vs-write split is obvious from the names.

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