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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is not the gap. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the result is a fixed set of exactly four questions, and each comes with answer options plus the planning meaning of each option, which tells the agent what it can do with the payload.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The payload contents are front-loaded and the no-input constraint closes it out.

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?

A static, zero-parameter tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, so the description need not explain return structure. It is essentially complete; only an explicit statement of where in the workflow the call belongs 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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description confirms 'No input,' which removes any doubt about whether a session or project identifier must be supplied before calling.

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 a concrete resource ('four hardware-planning intake questions'), then enumerates the topics covered (placement, interaction, room sensing, budget). No sibling is named, but the intake-questionnaire role is naturally distinct from the planning/firmware siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the name and content suggest calling it at the start of a planning flow to gather requirements. The description never says when to call it versus going straight to plan_gadget or get_build_plan, nor does it set a prerequisite.

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