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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine mode-dependent behavior (production stage reports missing live routes) and a backward-compatibility guarantee for legacy event-only calls, but it never says what a plan actually returns or requires to run.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Some phrases ('report missing live routes') are jargon-heavy and could be sharper, but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and a required country field, the absence of any explanation for 'event' and 'country' leaves a real gap an agent cannot fill elsewhere.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It supplies the valid task values and the meaning of stage=production, which the schema lacks, but it says nothing about 'event' (defaulting to payout) or the required 'country' parameter, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('Plan') and resource (verification) and enumerates the task kinds it handles (signup_phone, identity_onboarding, payout_account), which is more specificity than the schema offers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_sandbox_verification, but the plan-vs-create distinction is inferable.

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?

One conditional is given: 'Set stage=production to report missing live routes,' plus a note that legacy event-only calls still work. There is no guidance on when to choose this over create_sandbox_verification or get_coverage, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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