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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Decompose... using HTN planning' conveys the core operation but does not say whether this is a pure read/computation, whether it can fail, what the output structure looks like, or whether compound_tasks and primitive_operators are required for meaningful behavior.

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 tightly worded sentence with an active verb and no filler. The method and output are both named efficiently, so every word earns its place.

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 tool has four parameters, nested objects, two required fields, no annotations, and no inline schema descriptions, but the description provides only one sentence of guidance. It omits how to encode initial_state, how to express compound_tasks or primitive_operators, and what makes the decomposition valid, so an agent is under-equipped to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps 'high-level goals' to goal_tasks and says nothing about initial_state, compound_tasks, or primitive_operators. The HTN mention hints at the roles of the optional task/operator parameters, but not enough for an agent to populate them confidently.

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 ('decompose'), a specific resource ('high-level goals'), and a concrete outcome ('milestone subgoals'), while naming the method ('Hierarchical Task Network planning'). This distinguishes it from sibling planning/search tools like cognitive.tree_search or cognitive.compose_strategies, even without explicitly naming them.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when a goal should be broken into milestone subgoals via HTN planning. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against the many cognitive sibling tools.

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