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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: buyer-supplied information only, no outbound calls, a human-review draft as output, a 0.25 USD cost, and explicit wallet authorization. This gives the agent important side-effect and payment context that the schema and annotation booleans alone do not convey. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 tight sentences with the core function front-loaded, followed by scope constraints, return type, and pricing/payment. No filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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 description covers the main purpose, data-source constraints, return type, and payment side effect, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it leaves a notable gap by not explaining how the required nested `input` fields should be filled or what the optional expense/signature parameters mean, so the agent must infer parameter semantics from the schema alone.

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 needed to explain the parameters, but it never names or maps `input.brief`, `input.source_text`, `audience`, or the signature/idempotency fields. It only mentions high-level account-fact categories, which hints at content but not at how to populate the nested `input` object.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build an account plan from supplied account facts,' and lists the components (hypotheses, stakeholders, objectives, next actions). This is clear and distinguishes the tool from generic plan tools, though it does not explicitly contrast a sibling tool.

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?

It provides clear context for use: the tool consumes buyer-supplied account facts only, performs no external research or outbound actions, and returns a draft for human review. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so exclusions remain implicit.

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