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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral context by emphasizing the structural-only scope and the exclusion of live procedures or tenant data, which goes beyond simple read-only and clarifies output expectations.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and key output components; the second sentence clarifies scope and intended usage. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 specifies the output components (sections, roles, RTO/RPO tiers, test cadence) and clarifies what it does not include, which is sufficient for a read-only generator with no output schema. It could detail how parameters like 'regulated' affect the structure, but the core usage context is fully covered.

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 coverage is 75%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions org size, sector, and criticality, mapping to the main parameters, but does not elaborate on how they influence the output or explain the 'regulated' parameter. It adds only marginal semantic value over the schema's own descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('structural Business Continuity Plan outline') with detailed components (sections, roles, RTO/RPO tiers, test cadence). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on structural plan generation rather than templates or assessments, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides clear context: 'Structural only' and 'Use as a scaffold before populating with your specifics' tells when to use it and what it does not cover (live procedures or tenant data). It lacks explicit sibling alternatives, but the 'Structural only' caveat effectively excludes non-structural use cases, making the guidance clear.

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