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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which establishes a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds a useful behavior detail: when app_id is provided, the workflow includes a safe app context summary. This is beyond what annotations convey. It doesn't disclose output format, but for a planning tool that's acceptable given the safety profile.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. It leads with the core purpose, then immediately provides the usage contexts. Every word adds value, and it is efficiently front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple: zero required parameters, all optional, and a well-defined enum for task_type. The description covers what it does and when to use it. While it doesn't describe the return format or behavior for 'unknown' task_type, the schema defaults cover that, and the agent can infer the output is a sequence. It's complete enough for correct usage, but a bit more detail on output expectation would make it a 5.

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 description coverage is 100% — each parameter has a description, and task_type has a full enum. The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how goal affects the output or what the 'safe app context summary' means). Since the schema already documents parameters thoroughly, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no improvement from the description.

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 a specific action ('Return the recommended MCP tool sequence') and a specific resource ('for a task type'). It also lists concrete use cases (creating apps, editing files, seeding data, etc.), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_platform_guide or get_app_status. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and when it applies.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this before creating apps, editing files, seeding data, publishing, setting up A/B tests, restoring versions, or configuring secrets/integrations.' This gives clear positive contexts. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the directive use-before list is strong guidance. The lack of exclusions or named alternatives keeps it from a 5.

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