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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and 'Changes nothing' is consistent with that. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the tool returns: options, rules, and person-only steps. It does not explain the response structure beyond that conceptual list, so it adds some value but not rich operational detail.

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 one long, comma-heavy sentence with a sprawling list of task domains. The core behavior is not front-loaded, and the enumeration crowds out the key facts about what the tool returns and how to call it.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description gives just enough to call the tool: it says what conceptual content comes back and that no change occurs. However, the domain enumeration is noisy and the description still leaves an agent uncertain about the exact response shape and when this planning tool should be preferred over the concrete sibling tools.

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 the schema already documents the single `task` parameter as a key or the person's own words. The description adds only the minor detail that omitting `task` returns the list. That is a small increment over the schema, consistent with the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gestures at a planning/intake tool that returns the questions, options, rules, and person-only actions behind a task, and it enumerates task domains. But the opening phrase 'The questions behind anything a person does here' is vague and never says plainly that this tool plans or explains a task. An agent can infer the intent only after parsing the long enumeration.

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?

It implies usage by saying 'leave it out for the list' when no task is supplied, and it distinguishes planning from the actual sibling operations such as create_application or get_order by focusing on 'the questions behind' them. It does not explicitly state when to call this instead of the many concrete sibling tools, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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