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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it is template-based, leaves placeholders for missing inputs, and explicitly never invents numbers.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output format, then behavior. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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, but the description enumerates the full section structure of the Markdown it produces, which adequately substitutes. It is essentially complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is already 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping fields to the outline order and priority — notably 'asks first' and 'numbers vs plan' — clarifying how inputs are placed in the output.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (draft a board/exec update outline) plus the output format (Markdown) and the exact section structure. Clearly distinguishable from sibling draft_1on1_agenda by audience and content.

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?

Implies usage (drafting board/exec updates) and explains the template-filling behavior, but never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative tool. Context is implied rather than explicit.

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