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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description should confirm what the write actually does, but it only says the output is an "interactive card" and what the tool is not. No mention of state changes, persistence, or what a "prepared plan" means in terms of side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the primary action statement is front-loaded before the disambiguation clause. The terseness borders on under-specification, but no sentence is wasted.

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, no annotation-independent detail about the resulting card, zero parameter documentation, and a name/description mismatch, an agent lacks what it needs to call this confidently. The one-parameter surface keeps the gap from being fatal, but it is still substantial.

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% for the single parameter item_ids (an array of 1-4 strings up to 100 chars), and the description never mentions it. At best "published references" loosely hints at what the IDs denote, but cardinality, meaning, and valid sources are left entirely to inference.

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 sentence "Compare published references in an interactive card" gives a verb and a surface (card), but "published references" is undefined and does not connect to the tool name evuun_app_prepare_plan, so an agent cannot readily tell what the tool actually produces. No sibling is named, and unlike evuun_prepare_service_plan or evuun_review_communication_quote, no differentiation is offered beyond the negative clause.

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 only usage signal is exclusionary: "This is not a supplier quote or booking." There is no positive statement of when to call this versus evuun_prepare_service_plan, evuun_review_communication_quote, or evuun_create_service_inquiry, so the agent must infer selection criteria.

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