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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: weekends are skipped, critical path and slack are computed, missing method tasks are injected, and a default success metric is substituted and flagged when absent. It stops short of describing the returned plan's structure or how conflicts are resolved.

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 core action is front-loaded in the opening clause and every later clause adds a distinct scheduling or milestone behavior. It is a single dense run-on sentence with a long enumeration, which is heavier than ideal but not padded.

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 11 parameters, a nested feature object, and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by spelling out the plan's contents (dated schedule, critical path, slack, milestones) and the metrics defaults. It is complete enough to invoke correctly; only the ambiguity with build_scope_and_sequence remains unresolved.

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 91%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: scope is framed as an MVP cut, builders determine parallel scheduling on working days, include_method_tasks names the four injected tasks, and product_type drives a flagged default success metric. That is genuine semantic value on top of well-documented fields.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Turn a feature list with dependencies into a dated build plan') and enumerates the transformations performed, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. However, it never differentiates itself from the close sibling build_scope_and_sequence (or cut_mvp, which its 'applies the MVP cut' step overlaps with), so an agent has no textual basis for choosing between them.

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?

There is no 'use this when...' guidance and no named alternative, despite a sibling named build_scope_and_sequence that sounds nearly interchangeable and a cut_mvp sibling whose function the description partially absorbs. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb phrase.

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