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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Changes nothing' is redundant. What does add value is the disclosed state lifecycle (covered by set-up, waiting for a plan, plan waiting for approval, started, declined) and the fact that the checklist and any pending plan are included in the response.

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 ~90-word run-on whose first half explains what an Autopilot plan conceptually is ('a strategy from the account's real numbers, a checklist with check marks, expectations with numbers and dates') before the tool's actual behavior. Back-loading the verb and the status list is the opposite of front-loading; the conceptual preamble could be trimmed heavily.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably well by enumerating the statuses and the checklist/pending-plan contents an agent will receive. Only the use-relationship to the approve/decline/save siblings is left uncovered.

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?

Only one parameter, fully documented in the schema ('Client name from list_clients'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no format, naming, or resolution guidance for the client argument beyond the general client/account framing; baseline 3 applies under 100% schema coverage.

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 names a specific resource (newly linked accounts and their Autopilot plan status) and a specific action (lists accounts and where each stands), which separates it from channel_plan_approve/decline/save. However, the actual function is buried in the second half of a long sentence, after a paragraph of concept explanation, so the verb is not front-loaded.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'any plan waiting' and 'the agency approves it and that starts it' hint that this is the read step before approving, but the description never says 'use this to check status before calling channel_plan_approve' or names the alternative tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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