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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: consent-gating, non-destructive scheduling semantics (caps retained until period end), no-op behavior, 60s token TTL, two distinct return shapes, and the Dock-agent override where mode/confirm_token are ignored. This is materially more than the schema provides.

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?

Long, but front-loaded with the most important warning and organized into numbered consent surfaces, so density is justified by the two-step protocol. Slightly heavy for a two-parameter tool, but nearly every clause carries operational information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description spells out both possible first-call response shapes (confirmation_required with confirm_token, approval_required with approval_url/polling_url) and the completion path, leaving nothing an agent needs unknown before calling.

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%, so baseline is 3; however the description adds real meaning by explaining the interaction between `mode` and `confirm_token` (first call omits token and receives one, second call includes it within 60s) and that both are ignored for Dock agents — semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource: schedules the caller's org to drop from a retired org plan (Pro/Scale) to Free at end of the current billing period. Immediately scopes what it does NOT touch (Dock pricing, per-person plans, credits), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like upgrade_plan or get_billing.

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?

Explicitly covers when it applies (Pro/Scale org), when it is a no-op (already Free), and the two alternative invocation paths selected by `mode`, including the exact first-call/second-call sequence for chat mode and the click-then-poll sequence for web mode. The Dock-agent special case is also called out.

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