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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: safety steps come first, then goal steps, and each step contains an action, mechanism, and date. This gives the agent a concrete expectation of the plan's structure.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose, structure, and usage boundary. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful 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?

The schema thoroughly documents all four parameters, the output schema covers return structure, and annotations cover safety. The description adds goal selection, ordering logic, and the key usage boundary, so an agent has enough context to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with rich parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond listing the three goal options and emphasizing that the plan is multi-step; it does not explain cards, today, or targetUtilization beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific deliverable: 'an ordered plan for one of three goals' and names the exact goal options. It also distinguishes itself from single-action tools by noting it is for when someone wants 'more than the next single action,' which differentiates it from siblings like next_move.

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 final sentence gives an explicit when-to-use signal: use this when the user wants more than the next single action. This clearly implies a single-action alternative, though it does not name siblings such as next_move or describe when not to use the tool.

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