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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation by referencing 'most recent plan generated on file', suggesting no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it address rate limits or permissions. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, concise sentence that captures the essential purpose and data source without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's value proposition and distinguishing features, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

The description provides enough context for a straightforward retrieval tool: it names the output (ranked plan), the target (tracked app), and the source (most recent on file). While it doesn't explain what a 'tracked app' is or what to do if no plan exists, these are reasonable to infer from sibling tools and the schema. The absence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value details.

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 descriptions for both parameters are clear (app_key sourced from list_tracked_apps, country with format and default), giving high coverage. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already provides sufficient semantic clarity.

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 retrieves a ranked growth plan for a tracked app, including prioritization and reasoning. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the growth plan rather than listings, reviews, keywords, or app lists. The phrase 'most recent plan generated on file' adds specificity about the data source.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a prior plan, or scenarios where an alternative tool would be more appropriate. This lack of usage direction leaves the agent to infer context.

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