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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world evaluation, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description earns its keep by adding the verdict semantics that annotations cannot express: REFUSED forbids uttering the claim, no substitutes may be invented, and APPROVED restricts wording to sayOnly. That is meaningful operational context beyond the structured fields.

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 decision being made, then the two verdict semantics. Nothing is padding, though the 'Do not promise a faster reply, a dedicated agent...' clause overlaps with the REFUSED rule and could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the outcome vocabulary is well covered. However, for a four-required-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and two confusable UUID identifiers, the description leaves an agent unsure how to construct a valid call. The refusal semantics are complete; the invocation contract is not.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for four required parameters and it does not meet it. 'Reply window, channel, or staffing promise' loosely maps to the kind enum and proposal, but catalogId and planId (both UUIDs, with planId merely $ref-ing catalogId) are left entirely unexplained — an agent has no way to tell them apart or know what the proposal string should contain.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Decide whether a proposed reply window, channel, or staffing promise is in the approved set for this customer plan.' That is far more precise than the name alone and separates this evaluation tool from the listing/saving siblings. It stops short of naming the adjacent evaluator (evaluate_plan_coverage), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to test a proposed promise against the approved set. The description explains what the outcomes mean afterward but never states when to choose this over evaluate_plan_coverage, nor any preconditions (e.g., that a plan and catalog must exist first). Adequate but inferential.

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