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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the description only needs to add what the annotations cannot: that the response is a strategy plus a step-by-step plan, and the three integration paths considered. It stops short of describing how the plan varies by platform or use_case, or whether any external account/auth is implied by 'stream videos', leaving a small gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and supported modes, then usage triggers, then the parameter guidance, then the exclusion — a logical order with no filler. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical mode list runs slightly long.

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?

With an output schema present, return format needn't be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Purpose, triggers, exclusions, and both parameters are all addressed; only the relationship between parameter values and plan output (e.g., what changes for 'hardware' vs 'cms') is left implicit, which for a read-only advisory tool is acceptable.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it names both parameters and enumerates accepted platform values (web/mobile/hardware/cms) and gives concrete use_case examples (mvp, programs, ai_generated, corporate_wellness, vod). It adds meaning beyond raw enum text by linking them to the plan selection, though it doesn't explain defaults or how an invalid/unknown use_case is treated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns an integration strategy and step-by-step plan for Hyperhuman workouts or programs') and enumerates the three integration modes it covers (iframe embed, VOD export, custom player/API). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_embed_code_samples and adapt_plan without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('Use when the user asks how to integrate Hyperhuman or what integration options exist') plus an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('Not for copy-paste embed HTML snippets (use get_embed_code_samples for those)'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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