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

Adds substantive context beyond annotations: price (0.25 USD), the need for explicit wallet authorization, the no-outbound-actions constraint, and the fact that the result is a draft for human review rather than a final deliverable. The 'no external research' claim creates slight tension with openWorldHint=true, but reads as a runtime-behavior guarantee (no live lookups) that complements rather than contradicts the annotation's permissive scope.

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 sentences with zero filler: function, scope constraint, and cost/payment each occupy exactly one sentence, front-loaded in order of importance. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Core invocation context is present (inputs come from the buyer, output is a reviewable draft, cost and authorization are stated), but with no output schema and five parameters at 0% schema coverage, the missing parameter semantics and absent return/error behavior leave a clear gap. Adequate, not complete.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter meaning, yet it only loosely gestures at 'supplied requirements' mapping to brief/source_text. It never clarifies the brief vs. source_text distinction, the role of audience, or the purpose of result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, and payment_signature.

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 concrete artifact set: 'Create milestones, dependencies, work packages, roles, and acceptance checks from supplied requirements.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like launch_plan, scope_of_work_draft, or requirements_extraction, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

States clear context: use when buyer-supplied requirements exist and a reviewable draft is wanted. 'Uses buyer-supplied information only; no external research or outbound actions' implies the tool is inappropriate when external research is needed, but no sibling alternative is explicitly named and no when-not condition is stated outright.

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