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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond annotations by clarifying that nothing is scheduled or executed, the plan is returned for the person to act on themselves, and the tool does not make payments, change accounts, fetch external data, or retain inputs. This is rich, accurate behavioral disclosure.

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, each earning its place: when to use it, what it returns and how, and what it does not do. The most important routing information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 a rich schema, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the key contextual gaps: use case, output structure, side-effect absence, data handling, and scope boundaries. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without additional information.

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 the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds little beyond naming the three goal values and saying it "calculates scenarios from supplied figures," which is a reasonable baseline score when the schema already fully documents each field.

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 verb and resource: "Returns an ordered plan" for one of three named goals (raise_score, pay_down_balances, or build_credit). It also distinguishes this multi-step planning tool from a single-next-action tool, making its purpose clear and differentiated from siblings like get_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 opening phrase "Use this when someone wants more than the next single action" gives clear usage context and implicitly contrasts with the single-action sibling tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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