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

The annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent, and the description's 'recommend a plan' aligns with those signals without contradicting them. The description adds little beyond that, such as whether any state changes occur or how conflicting criteria are resolved, but with read-only annotations the bar is lower and the safe behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 sentence that fronts the primary action and enumerates the relevant inputs with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of what to pass.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description covers the main input semantics. However, it omits the locale parameter and does not explain how the plan is chosen or when this recommender is preferred over sibling commercial tools, leaving a few gaps for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully maps the main criteria to the parameter concepts: project count -> projects, team size -> teamSize, live-data need -> wantsLiveData, distributor status -> distributor, and write requirement -> needsWrite. It does not mention locale, but it clarifies the purpose of five of the six parameters, adding substantial meaning over the bare schema.

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 recommends a plan, which is a specific verb plus resource, and lists the exact decision criteria (project count, team size, live-data need, distributor status, write requirement). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling comparison/estimation tools like dp_commercial_compare_offers or dp_estimate_roi, but the criteria-based recommendation function is recognizable enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling commercial tools. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and criteria list alone.

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