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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the fixed four-phase output structure and the deterministic augmentation rule (level 0/1 readiness areas inject preparation tasks into the discovery phase). It stops short of noting determinism guarantees or output size limits.

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, zero filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second adds the conditional behavior. No restatement of the tool name or schema enums.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden and does so well (phases, tasks, RACI, risks, indicators). The only shortfall is that the dependency on get_readiness_questions for constructing 'answers' lives only in the schema and would have been useful in the description itself.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the 'answers' parameter by explaining its downstream effect (preparation tasks added to discovery for level 0/1 areas) and ties 'pattern' to the plan's shape rather than restating the enum. 'lang' gets no extra context, keeping it from a 5.

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 gives a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('phased rollout plan') and enumerates the plan's contents (discovery/pilot/rollout/operations, tasks, RACI roles, risks, indicators) scoped to 'the chosen implementation pattern'. This is clearly distinct from siblings like assess_ai_readiness, estimate_ai_costs, or adoption_get_pattern.

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 only implied: the second sentence establishes a conditional ('When readiness answers are given...'), which suggests the answers parameter is optional, but it never says when to call this vs. running assess_ai_readiness or fetching get_readiness_questions first. No explicit when-not guidance or sibling routing.

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