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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safe, non-mutating profile, and the description is consistent with it by saying 'Read-only'. It adds useful context that the planner produces spring nodes, piles, stiffness ranges, and blockers, but it does not explain what blockers mean, whether they prevent later execution, or what the planner output contains.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble. It is concise, though the phrase 'every blocker' is opaque and the sentence is doing a lot of implicit work for such a complex tool.

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?

For a 21-parameter tool with nested SSI configuration and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the plan's return shape, the meaning of blockers, how route overrides interact with planning, or key prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 only 48% across 21 parameters, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented inputs, but it does not. It mentions conceptual elements such as piles and stiffness range without mapping them to specific parameters or explaining required fields, override behavior, or the nested ssi settings.

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 verb and resource: planning the PD 6694-1 Annex A soil-structure interaction run on the open model via the plugin's planner. It also lists the artifacts produced (spring nodes, piles, stiffness range, blockers), and the planning/read-only framing distinguishes it from the sibling execution tool pd6694_ssi_run.

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 by 'Plans' and 'Read-only', suggesting this is a pre-execution check rather than an execution or mutation tool. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus pd6694_ssi_run, nor does it name prerequisites or exclusions.

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