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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new trait, that the plan is deterministic, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or freshness of the embedded prices beyond the 'prices checked date' field.

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 correctly front-loaded in the opening clause, but the rest is a single run-on enumeration of payload fields, and the trailing 'Input: device_id 1-200 chars' restates the schema verbatim. The field list is somewhat useful but overlaps what the output schema already documents.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and full annotation coverage plus a fully documented single parameter mean an agent can call this correctly from the definition. The only real gap is sibling disambiguation against plan_gadget.

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% and the single parameter is documented there, so the description's 'Input: device_id 1-200 chars' is pure repetition. It adds no format, lookup, or failure semantics beyond what the schema already carries, which is the baseline case.

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 ('Return') and resource ('complete deterministic build plan') and enumerates the plan's contents, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, plan_gadget, so the reader must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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?

The phrase 'for a catalog device id' implicitly tells the agent a catalog-resident device is a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing to plan_gadget or intake_gadget. Guidance is only implied.

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