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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavior: output is returned as text, and the tool fails loudly (error rather than a guess) on unsupported frameworks. That error-instead-of-hallucination contract is the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the purpose and the artifact list come first, and the error condition follows. It is dense but front-loaded and every clause carries information about behavior or output.

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 read-only planning tool with no output schema, the description still conveys the shape of the result (a plan plus architecture documents as text) and the failure mode. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the enum values are self-describing; baseline 3 applies. The description's note that platform is inferred from the prompt otherwise largely repeats the schema, though the mention of unsupported frameworks adds boundary meaning to the enum.

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 specific verb+resource ('Turn an app idea into an Offline Protocol plan') and enumerates the artifacts produced: workflow, platform, packages, starter template, architecture documents. That clearly separates it from the singular sibling tools like get_package or list_workflows, which fetch one artifact each. It stops short of naming an alternative tool it could be confused with (e.g. preview_scaffold or resolve_packages), so it isn't a full 5.

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?

Gives concrete invocation guidance: it errors instead of guessing when the idea needs an unsupported framework (Flutter, native Swift) unless a platform is supplied. This tells the agent exactly when the call will fail and what input avoids the failure. There is no explicit routing to or away from sibling tools, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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