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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety burden is lifted. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it validates duration assumptions and local tool permissions, caps output at three candidates, and can return explicit blockers rather than failing. It does not describe cost, latency, or determinism of the preview.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by what is returned. Terminology is dense but each clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 9-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description reasonably conveys output shape and the non-execution guarantee, so an agent can call it without guessing return format. The large parameter-semantics gap (0% coverage) keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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% across nine parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only obliquely gestures at a few inputs ('duration assumptions', 'local tool permissions', 'three candidate budgets'), leaving items, budget, seed, samples, uncertainty, duration_model, and min_success_rate entirely unexplained in both places.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Preview a bounded robust scheduling mission') and enumerates the artifacts returned (three candidate budgets, engine-call/sample bounds, or blockers). It never names or contrasts with the obvious siblings (build_robust_plan, optimize_tasks, simulate_plan), so an agent still has to infer which related tool to pick.

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 phrase 'without executing engines' and 'Does not generate arbitrary tools or execute external code' imply this is the non-executing preview step, which is useful context. However, no explicit when-to-use rule or named alternative (e.g., build_robust_plan or execute_composition) is given, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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