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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the 400-entry cap (a size/truncation limit) and the per-topic fields returned (kind and status), which the agent could not derive from the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the resource, the source of the id, the return fields, and the cap; the trailing docs link is short and useful. Minor redundancy with the schema's own 'omit for the Cyber root' wording costs a point but nothing is bloated.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does: an outline structure annotated with kind and status, plus a truncation cap. The only real gap is an explicit statement of how this subtree differs in content from the published outline returned by get_outline.

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 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the 'omit for the Cyber root' note that the description repeats verbatim. The description adds no syntax, format, or depth-behavior detail 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?

Names a specific resource (the planned taxonomy subtree) and the verb-like action (outline), and states what each entry contains (kind and status). It differentiates itself from the published-taxonomy sibling get_outline only implicitly via the word 'planned', and never names get_outline as the contrasting alternative.

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?

Tells the agent where the topic_id comes from (search_planned_topics) and the special case for omitting it (Cyber root), giving clear entry context. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_outline or list_topics, so the when-not side is left to inference.

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