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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Return' implies a read/retrieval operation, but the description does not state whether the output varies with the seven filter parameters, whether any state changes occur, or what a 'design partner pilot motion' actually contains. This falls well short for an annotation-free tool.

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 a single sentence with zero filler and the action verb front-loaded. It is clean and scannable; the brevity comes at the cost of substance, but structurally it earns a high mark for efficiency.

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 tool with 7 optional parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, a 14-word description is severely under-specified. The output schema covers the return shape, but nothing explains the domain concept ('design partner pilot motion'), how parameters shape the result, or how to choose this pack over adjacent siblings.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it mentions none of them. The parameter names (risk_id, phase_id, wedge_id, metric_id, segment_id, question_id, status) hint at a filter-by-ID pattern, but there is no guidance on valid values, how parameters combine, or what effect each has on the returned pack.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a resource ('the design partner pilot motion') with a stated purpose, so it goes beyond a tautology. However, 'design partner pilot motion' is undefined jargon, and the description does not differentiate this pack from the ~70 sibling recipe packs that overlap in theme (e.g., recipes_hosted_mcp_readiness_pack, recipes_secure_context_customer_proof_pack).

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 clause 'for buyer proof and hosted MCP validation' implies when to use the tool, giving some contextual anchor. But there are no explicit use conditions, no exclusions, and no references to alternative packs, which is a notable gap given how many sibling packs cover adjacent concepts like customer proof or hosted MCP readiness.

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