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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the data source (AMZ Vault) and the plan's internal structure, which helps the agent anticipate what the response will contain. It does not contradict annotations and provides a reasonable behavioral preview for a read-only tool.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence describes the tool's content in a structured list, and the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns. It lists the major sections (scorecard, tasks, risks, progress) and their sub-elements, giving a clear mental model of the response. It also notes the source (AMZ Vault) and the intended planning context. It could be slightly more explicit about returning the entire plan, but the enumeration of components sufficiently covers the content.

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 fully documents the only parameter (seller_connection_id) with its meaning and optionality, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, which is acceptable given the schema already explains everything. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 that this tool returns the brand's quarterly growth plan and enumerates its components (window, north star, scorecard, tasks, risks, progress). It distinguishes itself from the sibling growth_plan_upsert by being the read-only version, and it specifies the intended use cases ('are we on plan?', 'what is next?'), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description explicitly lists when to use this tool: for plan-status questions and as planning context for the Chief of Staff. It implies this is for reading the plan, and the sibling growth_plan_upsert exists for modifications, though not explicitly stated. The clear usage scenarios suffice for correct selection.

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