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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'create or recover' phrasing usefully reinforces the idempotency behavior. It adds genuine non-annotation context: the result is immutable, returns versioned options and licensed media, and explicitly performs no payment or reservation. It still omits any auth/permission or rate-limit context.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cardinality. Some jargon ('destination-reference', 'licensed media') costs a little readability but nothing is padded.

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 steps in to describe the return ('versioned options and licensed media') and lists explicit non-behaviors (no private intent, invented route, payment or reservation). The main remaining gap is that it does not situate the tool against its many siblings.

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 carries the burden. It does explain item_ids well ('1–4 published service or destination-reference IDs'), mirroring the min/max constraints, but idempotency_key is never mentioned, and no format/syntax detail is added beyond the schema pattern.

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 and resource: 'Create or recover one immutable public comparison' for '1–4 published service or destination-reference IDs.' That is far more precise than the name 'prepare_service_plan' alone, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling prepare_* tools such as evuun_prepare_service_inquiry or evuun_prepare_service_handoff.

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?

Gives implied routing context – destination references are 'free to read and compare and cannot be procured; only service options require a quote' – which hints at when this tool applies. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no named alternative, and no guidance on choosing between this and the other prepare_* siblings.

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