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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: no account required, nothing is persisted, and the returned hours-saved figures are estimates rather than guarantees. It also pre-discloses the shape of the response, which matters because there is no output schema.

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, then constraints, then the return shape; almost every sentence carries distinct information. It is slightly dense in a single paragraph and 'from the same 5 questions and the same ranking as the free planner' is a shade promotional, but nothing is truly wasted.

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?

With five parameters, three enums and no output schema, the description does exactly the work required: it explains the return payload (titles, fit rationale, estimated hours saved, schedule, guide links) and warns off guessing at user answers. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100%, so the enum meanings are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by tying the inputs to 'the same 5 questions' and instructing the agent not to fabricate answers for them, which guards against the main failure mode for these enum parameters.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Recommend the first AI agent... plus the next 3 jobs to add') and scopes it to small businesses, which clearly separates it from get_template and search_use_cases. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit procedural guidance on invocation ('Ask the user the 5 questions first; do not guess their answers') and frames it as a read-only, no-account planning tool. It never names the sibling tools or states when one of them is the better choice, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not routing statement.

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