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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the tool returns a ranked recommendation and loop decision, that it is free, and that it performs no execution — an agent knows it is safe to call and produces advice, not side effects.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The purpose and the domain scope are front-loaded, and the non-execution caveat follows immediately where it matters.

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 spelled out, and annotations cover safety. However, the undefined 'input' object and the vague qualifier 'supported ... jobs' leave a real hole for a planning tool whose output drives downstream execution.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'goal' is documented in the schema, but 'input' is an untyped, undescribed object. The description says nothing about either parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap — an agent has no guidance on what to place in 'input' or how it differs from 'goal'.

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 function (a skill-loop planner for SEO, security, ship-gate, and catalog jobs) and adds a scoping clause — 'it does not execute the work' — that separates it from executor siblings like solve_task or run_workflow. The verb is nominal ('planner') and no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'it does not execute the work' implies this is a pre-execution planning step, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no named alternative (solve_task, run_workflow, job_start), and no statement of what to do with the returned loop decision. Usage must be inferred.

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