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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: 'Pure: no disk, no network', which tells the agent the call is side-effect free and safe to repeat. It says nothing about whether validation occurs, how missing stages are handled, or what the planning result contains.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the second sentence degenerates into a 26-item undifferentiated name dump with no grouping or emphasis. It is compact in sentence count yet hard to parse, and the parenthetical stage list dominates the description.

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 35-parameter orchestrator with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine required combinations, output shape, or error behavior from this text.

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 35 parameters, and the description does not compensate. The stage names loosely map to parameter names (e.g. 'warrant-template' to warrantTemplate), but there is no explanation of field shapes, which fields are mutually exclusive, or what the opaque object-typed params like ops, cuni, and swap should contain.

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: 'Plan one ACN (Agent Commerce Network) run'. The scope is further bounded by naming the stages it spans. It does not explicitly contrast with spl_agentic_run, but 'Plan' plus 'Pure: no disk, no network' makes the non-executing nature reasonably clear.

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 only conditional is 'when the matching spec field is present', which restates the obvious. There is no guidance on when to plan versus call spl_agentic_run, no prerequisite or ordering information, and no indication of what a valid spec looks like.

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