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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, the description resolves the apparent tension directly: 'Saves the plan and changes nothing in the account', i.e. it persists a plan artifact but mutates no account state. It also discloses return content (address suggestions with fallbacks, branding, components, plan limits, pending decisions) and that accept_recommended never publishes. It stops short of saying whether plans expire or how an earlier plan_id is superseded.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger and tightly packed, with no filler sentences. However the middle is a single very long clause chain listing return fields, which makes it harder to scan than two or three shorter sentences would be.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating exactly what the call returns and what decisions come back to the user. Combined with 100% schema coverage on seven parameters, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by spelling out the decision set the 'answers' object carries ('the address, which of the site's services to show, and whether to publish') and the fallback behaviour of the slug. It doesn't explain the precedence between top-level name/slug and the same keys inside answers, which is the one genuinely ambiguous relationship.

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 ('plan' / 'public status page for their customers, made from one of their sites or empty') and covers both input modes. It also separates itself from two neighbours: 'changes nothing in the account' distinguishes it from create_status_page, and check_service_status is named as the tool for another company's status.

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 first clause gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants a public status page for their customers'), and the last sentence gives an explicit exclusion plus the alternative tool ('Not for another company's status: use check_service_status'). The publish-confirmation rule ('that needs the user's yes') is stated as a usage constraint.

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