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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds real context beyond them: it explicitly says no account, inquiry, order, or store connection is created, clarifies the channel is not a live connection, and warns against sending PII. It stops short of describing rate limits or how the registration link behaves.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and output before the boundary conditions. Each sentence carries distinct information (purpose, return, channel semantics, safety constraint), with only minor overlap between the channel clarification and the 'no connection is created' line.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully spells out what is returned (requirements, steps, registration link). Combined with the safety constraints it covers the essentials for a schema-only tool, though shell/pagination details and sibling routing remain unstated.

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% and both enum parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description earns extra credit by adding semantic meaning to 'channel' ('identifies the seller platform; it does not connect it'), clarifying that a non-integration enum value is still acceptable input.

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 ('Plan') and resource ('first sourcing, inspection, prep, storage or fulfillment job'), and enumerates the service scope, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not name or differentiate itself from the siblings estimate_prepport_base_cost or list_prepport_services, which keeps it short of a 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?

The description frames the scenario ('first ... job') and gives exclusion-style guidance ('does not connect it', 'No account, inquiry, order or store connection is created'), implying when it is appropriate. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer a sibling like estimate_prepport_base_cost, so routing guidance is only implied.

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