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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context by outlining the output structure (teams, roles, AI agents, work modules, timeline, plan size) and the plan_id return value. It does not contradict any annotations and complements them with specific information about what is produced, earning a 4.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses multiple sentences but each carries meaningful information: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It avoids unnecessary filler but contains a slight redundancy between 'Create a structured delivery plan for an initiative the user describes' and 'Given a plain-language description of something to build...' which is minor. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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, the description does not need to detail return values, and it appropriately mentions the plan contents and plan_id. The tool has one required parameter and two optional ones, all explained in the schema. The description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to call it, including that it is a creation step for other tools. No critical operational details are missing for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (initiative, industry, company_size). The description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as default values or format expectations. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a structured delivery plan for an initiative the user describes.' It specifies the verb (create), resource (delivery plan), and the content of the plan (teams, roles, AI agents, Delivery Units, timeline, plan size). It distinguishes itself from siblings implicitly by mentioning it produces a plan_id used by other tools, but does not explicitly name alternatives. This is clear and specific, though not explicitly differentiated from refine_delivery_plan.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use this tool when a user describes a project or initiative and wants to understand the team, scope, timeline, or cost to deliver it.' This gives clear context and intent for invoking the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools (e.g., refine_delivery_plan for modifications), so it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, scoring a 4 rather than 5.

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