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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose the plan's key outputs: best shared signal, step-by-step cable chain, sync and 75-ohm termination rules, and whether a BKM card, mod, adapter, or converter is needed. It does not explicitly state that the tool is advisory/read-only, but the 'plan' framing strongly implies no direct mutation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then packs the supported console and monitor lists into a compact form. It is dense but purposeful, with no obvious filler.

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 planning tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what the result should contain and which devices are supported. It could say more about handling unsupported combinations or the exact output format, but it is largely complete for an agent to invoke the tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful domain enumeration by listing supported consoles and monitors. It does not explain input normalization or behavior for unsupported model names, which keeps 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 states a specific verb and resource: planning a connection from a retro console to a Sony monitor. It clearly scopes what the plan includes, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as sony_monitor_specs, bkm_cards, or console_video_out.

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?

The implied use case is clear from the phrase 'Plan the connection from a retro console to one of the Sony monitors in the collection.' However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternative tools for related tasks.

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