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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and 'does not create anything' and adds genuinely new behavioral detail about supported input formats and the contents of the preview report. It does not mention limits such as file size or what happens with an unsupported/corrupt file, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and formats, then the negative scope, then the alternative. No filler and nothing an agent needs is buried.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating what the preview reports (counts, dates, first tasks, warnings). Combined with annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (tz, filename, workspaceId, contentBase64) are already documented in the schema. The description's format list implicitly constrains the filename extension, but it adds nothing about tz semantics, the workspaceId default, or the base64/filename dependency. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Reads') plus an enumerated set of supported formats (.mpp, .mpx, MSPDI .xml, .xer, .pod) and states exactly what it returns: task/dependency/resource/calendar counts, project dates, first tasks, warnings. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not (planitude_import_file), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

States the exclusion directly ('It does not create anything') and routes to the alternative with the condition that selects it ('To actually import the file use planitude_import_file'). An agent knows both when to call this and when to call the other tool.

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