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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond these: it does not charge credits, does not check combined compatibility, and that missing entries remain explicit rather than causing failure.

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 description is compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and caveats following. The first sentence is slightly dense and the final sentence is somewhat generic, but no words are 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?

Given a single-parameter input, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the result ('a plan with each profile and delivery instructions') and about limitations. It does not fully define 'profile' or 'delivery instructions,' but the domain-specific language is probably adequate for an agent with Daystruct knowledge.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description compensates by defining references as 'discovered capability IDs' and by stating the six-item upper bound, which maps to the schema's maxItems. The note about missing entries also clarifies how unresolved IDs are treated.

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 a specific operation: 'Group up to six discovered capability IDs into a plan with each profile and delivery instructions.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with execution and acquisition tools by stating what it does not do, making its purpose distinct from siblings like discover_daystruct_capabilities.

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 phrase 'discovered capability IDs' places the tool after discovery, and 'Does not acquire, execute...' gives clear when-not conditions. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the intended workflow is evident from the description.

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