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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: it returns a plan rather than executing, never handles secret values, and does not run interactive flows ('emit-and-verify', 'best-effort'). It does not describe error/fallback behavior when no command exists, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the return contents come first, then the behavioral limit, then the usage routing. Terminology like 'emit-and-verify' is slightly jargon-heavy but each clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still supplies the conceptual model (plan vs execution, no secrets) and the sibling relationship. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it appears missing.

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% and the nested target object is fully documented, so the schema carries the burden; baseline 3 applies. The description's mention that the credential comes from list_required_credentials largely repeats what the `var` schema description already states.

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 concrete verb and resource: returns the acquisition plan for one credential on a target, enumerating what the plan contains (provider URL, non-interactive command, presence flag). It also preempts the misleading name by clarifying it does not run interactive flows, and distinguishes itself from list_required_credentials.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use it for a single credential surfaced by list_required_credentials, and states it does not replace that listing. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use for other cases (e.g. multi-credential setup vs apply_clone/install_component), but the primary alternative is named.

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