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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: 'opens nothing by itself' confirms and explains the readOnlyHint, and it discloses that the return value is step-by-step UI guidance (screens, buttons, fields). This is more informative than the annotations alone, though it doesn't cover failure cases or how up-to-date the guidance is.

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?

The core behavior and the follow-up step are front-loaded and efficient. The trailing 'Anaplan's official API: Yes.' is an orphaned fragment whose relevance is unclear and slightly dilutes the otherwise tight structure.

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?

For a zero-parameter, non-destructive guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, what it does not do, and how to act on the result. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for, and it doesn't waste space re-documenting an empty schema.

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 specific verb and resource (run import in Anaplan) and clarifies it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action, which separates it from anaplan_run_export and anaplan_run_process. The name 'Run import' is slightly misleading since the tool does not actually execute the import, but the description corrects this immediately.

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 tells the agent to follow up with cotlet_browser_* tools, giving a clear workflow implication. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over anaplan_upload_import_file or anaplan_run_process, leaving differentiation to inference.

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