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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is 'advisory only,' does not take payment, and returns external referral links to the AiDOOS website. This goes beyond the annotations and sets correct expectations for the agent.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose, then states the trigger, and ends with the advisory caveat. Each sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool has one parameter and an output schema (not shown but implied), the description covers the purpose, trigger, outputs, and key behavioral constraints (advisory, no payment). It could explicitly mention alternatives like refine_delivery_plan for modifications, but for a simple read-only tool, it is otherwise complete.

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 schema description for plan_id is 100% covered, so the parameter's purpose is clear. The description adds meaning by stating that plan_id must come from a prior create_delivery_plan or refine_delivery_plan call, which is not in the schema and helps the agent supply a valid value.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Summarize how to proceed with a delivery plan') and enumerates concrete outputs (plan size, indicative cost, available tiers, referral links). It also specifies the trigger ('when the user asks how to proceed or what the next step is'), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_delivery_plan or refine_delivery_plan without ambiguity.

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?

Provides an explicit usage condition: 'Use this tool when the user asks how to proceed or what the next step is for a plan created earlier in the conversation.' It also clarifies what it does not do (no payment or purchase). However, it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly or state when not to use it beyond that, leaving some inference to the agent.

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