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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral constraints: CEP only discovers the separate authenticated trial and transaction data must never be submitted here. It also clarifies that production stage reports missing live routes while legacy event-only calls remain supported.

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 short, but it is dense and not front-loaded: the first sentence is a list of internal task identifiers rather than a plain purpose statement. The constraints are useful, yet the structure makes the agent parse jargon before understanding the tool.

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 output schema and annotations reduce some burden, but the input schema has 4 parameters with no descriptions and the required country field is never addressed. The description also leaves sibling routing and task/event semantics incomplete for an agent to call this confidently.

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 explain all four parameters. It partially explains task choices, stage=production, and legacy event usage, but does not define the required country parameter or clearly map the listed task names and event behavior to the schema fields.

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 planning action and lists supported internal task names, but 'Plan signup_phone, identity_onboarding, payout_account or MX mx_cep_existing_payment' is jargon-heavy and does not plainly state what the planning output represents. It also does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as create_sandbox_verification or get_coverage.

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?

It gives some operational guidance, notably setting stage=production to report missing live routes and keeping legacy event-only calls supported. However, it never states when to use this tool instead of create_sandbox_verification, get_sandbox_verification, explain_result, or get_coverage.

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