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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating that no credentials or personal data are needed and by enumerating what is returned, giving the agent clear expectations about prerequisites and output.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The most important instruction, "Start here to integrate Lunium," is front-loaded, and every clause adds distinct value: usage, return contents, and auth requirements.

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?

The returned artifact is well summarized, and the auth reassurance plus integration-sequence placement are useful. However, for a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify whether and how `flow` and `stack` customize the plan. This gap makes it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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% and the description never mentions the optional `flow` or `stack` parameters. The enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, but the agent receives no guidance on how these parameters shape the resulting plan, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 states a concrete action and resource: it returns the current API flow, runnable starter, sandbox limits, and production checklist for integrating Lunium. It clearly positions itself as the starting point, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by name.

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?

"Start here to integrate Lunium" gives explicit context that this tool is the entry point before other Lunium integration steps. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling list contains no competing planning tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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