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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds real value: the cost model is structural graph steps rather than speed, price or quality, and the tool performs no execution. Those are non-obvious behavioral facts an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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 core action and return shape, with no filler. The prose is dense and jargon-heavy ('declared available/goal contracts'), which costs a little readability but not conciseness.

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 tool has no output schema and no schema descriptions, but the description does state the return contents (dependencies, blockers, bindings), which covers the most important gap. Still, for a 5-parameter tool with nested objects it says nothing about what 'contracts' are, how 'inputs' are consumed, or what a failure/no-plan outcome looks like.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It hints at the semantics of goals/available and of the constraints ('tool, locality and search bounds' maps onto allowed_tools, local_only and max_search_states), but the 'inputs' object and the 'adapters' object (route_durations.v1/speed_kmh) are left completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a schema with nested objects.

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 concrete activity — planning a capability chain from declared 'available' and 'goals' contracts — and names the outputs (dependencies, blockers, existing-tool bindings). The closing sentence ('runs no engines; execution validates arguments') implicitly distinguishes it from the execution siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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: 'Runs no engines' tells the agent this is planning-only and that validation happens at execution time, which pushes execution work toward another tool. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement and no named alternative such as execute_composition or build_robust_plan.

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