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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it states the tool is advisory only, takes no payment, completes no purchase, and routes users to external AiDOOS referral links.

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?

Four sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, return contents, trigger condition, and the payment/write boundary. Front-loaded with the core action, and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only, advisory tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and boundary conditions without needing to describe return formatting. Nothing an agent needs to select or call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already says the plan_id comes from prior create/refine calls. The description restates that provenance without adding format, validation, or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a clear action and resource (summarize next steps for a delivery plan) and enumerates what the call returns: plan size, indicative cost, tiers, and referral links. It implicitly separates itself from create/refine siblings by being advisory, but never explicitly contrasts with get_delivery_plan, the closest sibling.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: use when the user asks how to proceed or what the next step is for a plan created earlier in the conversation. The 'advisory only' clause adds a boundary, but no alternative tool is named for when a user wants raw plan data instead of a recommendation.

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