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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (writes, non-destructive, closed-world); the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: results are non-binding drafts, an existing option set is re-listed rather than regenerated (a partial idempotency guarantee), regenerate overrides that, and IN_PROGRESS requires a follow-up check. This is exactly the kind of state/return behavior annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and effect, then cascades into modes, prerequisites and edge cases with no filler sentences. It is dense and long for a single description, with several parenthetical clauses, but each sentence carries distinct operational 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must speak to return content, and it does: options for the requested kind, per-option placement fees, shipment counts, and the IN_PROGRESS status path. Combined with the prerequisite chain, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly without guessing.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description carries the load: it explains the two enum values of 'kind' in detail (what a packing option is vs a placement option, including fee and shipment-count content) and clarifies the re-list vs regenerate behavior of 'regenerate'. 'inbound_plan_id' is required but left implicitly obvious, so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Genera E elenca ... le opzioni del piano inbound FBA') and then specifies what each 'kind' produces (packing groups vs destination splits with placement fees). It is clearly distinguishable from create_inbound_plan, get_inbound_plan and confirm_inbound_option in the sibling list.

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 explicit prerequisites for each mode: the plan must exist (create_inbound_plan) and placement additionally requires confirmed packing plus boxes sent (set_packing_information). It also gives branching guidance for the non-obvious cases: re-listing when options already exist, regenerate:true to force new generation, and verifying with get_inbound_plan on IN_PROGRESS instead of blind regeneration.

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