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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the output includes canonical candidates, evidence, Unknown requirements and bounded alternatives, and the tool explicitly does not draft with AI, verify readiness, implement processing or execute provider operations.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by input requirement, return contents and exclusions. Every sentence carries information, though the mixed instructions ('Include the complete original goal...') and return-value listing could be organized slightly more cleanly.

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?

The output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and the description covers the planning-only contract and step bound. For a tool with a deeply nested, entirely undocumented workflow schema, though, an agent still lacks guidance on how match, inputs and outputs relate across steps.

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 0% and the single top-level parameter is a deeply nested workflow object, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for 'goal' (complete original goal and restrictions) and for the step count (1–8), but it says nothing about nested fields such as match, inputs, outputs or schema_version.

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 and resource — 'Propose a planning-only API workflow from 1–8 structured steps' — with the step bound made explicit. It also carves out scope against sibling concerns like verification and execution, though it never names a sibling tool directly.

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 'planning-only' framing and the list of non-goals imply when the tool applies, and 'Does not verify execution readiness' steers an agent away from verify_requirement. However, there is no explicit positive trigger ('use this when you need X instead of compare_apis') and no named alternatives, leaving routing to inference.

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