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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some useful context about the target audience (new software engineer) and the plan's construction, but does not describe auth needs, output shape (no output schema exists), or whether it depends on other tools.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the deliverable and followed by an itemized content list. Every phrase carries weight; slightly list-heavy but effective.

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?

Without an output schema the description is the only place return values could be explained, but it does not describe the plan's format or structure beyond topic mentions. For a generated-artifact tool with two params and full schema coverage, what is present is adequate but not complete.

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%: role and details are both documented, and details even enumerates expected inputs such as start date, team, systems, scorecard outcomes, contributor type. The description adds no further parameter guidance, so the schema-carried baseline of 3 is correct.

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 clear deliverable (a 30-60-90 day plan) and itemizes its contents: least-privilege day-1 access, first PR in week one, buddy plan, milestones. It is distinguishable from siblings like build_role_scorecard or build_interview_kit, though its sibling-differentiation is by topic rather than explicit routing sentence.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives. The description does not tell the agent when to pick this over build_role_scorecard, even though the plan's milestones depend on the scorecard outputs.

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