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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to add much. It adds the no-op behavior when there is no retained policy, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't add detail on state changes or side effects, but the annotations cover the basics.

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 sentences, both purposeful. The first states the primary action and value proposition; the second clarifies a boundary condition. No fluff, no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a zero-parameter operation with annotations covering idempotency and read-only, the description is fairly complete. It could mention the effect on the plan's state or any prerequisites, but the no-op clause covers the main edge case. Slight gap on what 'resume' means functionally, but sufficient.

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% but there are 0 parameters. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none. With no parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description could add context about how the tool identifies the plan, but that is implicit. No additional value needed.

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 the action (resume), the specific resource (periodization plan), and the key benefit (no re-authoring). It distinguishes from create/set operations like set_periodization_plan, and the sibling pause_periodization_plan is implicitly the inverse. Slight deduction because it doesn't explicitly mention 'resume' as the inverse of 'pause' or list alternatives.

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 context (re-activate paused policy) and mentions a no-op condition (no retained policy), providing clear guidance on when the tool is effective. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., use set_periodization_plan if no prior plan exists), but the context is clear enough.

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