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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read/evaluate action, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires existing plans or task structures, performs any state changes, or has side effects. The behavior is only minimally implied by the word 'Evaluate'.

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 inline examples, which is compact and front-loads the core purpose. It earns its place, though it sacrifices meaningful detail for brevity.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverageže, 4 parameters, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It leaves unclear the relationship between `plan_id` and `task_structure_id`, the expected shape of `parameters`, and the range of acceptable `query_type` values. The output schema exists, which helps, but does not compensate for the missing input semantics.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond referencing a 'plan' and giving examples of query types. It does not clarify what `task_structure_id` is for, what `parameters` should contain, or how `query_type` values are formatted. With four parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is insufficient.

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 states a clear verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('a counterfactual query on a plan'), with concrete examples ('What if capacity drops?', 'What if a route fails?'). It is specific enough to be understood, but it does not distinguish itself from closely named siblings like cognitive.counterfactual_what_if or cognitive.plan_with_counterfactuals.

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 examples imply that this tool is for hypothetical 'what if' scenarios on plans, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as cognitive.counterfactual_what_if or cognitive.plan_with_counterfactuals. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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