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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: at most one elicitation form per call, human-typed values override args, a declined stage leaves prior committed stages applied, Stripe prices only minted by the plans stage for existing paid tiers, and per-stage reversibility. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail 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 purpose, then progressively discloses stage mechanics, overrides, failure modes, and prerequisites. It is dense but nearly every clause carries operational meaning; the only slack is the slightly rambling enumeration of configurable items in the opening sentence.

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 9-parameter, multi-stage, destructive wizard with no output schema, the description covers the call-return loop (returns next_call to continue), stage ordering, and human-gating, which is what an agent needs to drive it. The remaining gap is the unexplained `tier`/`domain`/`coupon_code`/`discount_percent` args and no detail on what overview/finish recon returns.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the important ones: the `stage` enum values and their purpose, `price_suggestions` ('pass price_suggestions from market research to seed defaults'), `faq_drafts` as seeds, and `dry_run` echoing the form with no writes. However `tier`, `domain`, `coupon_code`, and `discount_percent` are never explained, so a caller still has to guess how those args map to form fields.

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 ('guided, stage-chained wizard that configures an app's hosted pricing page end to end') and enumerates exactly what it configures (plans, coupon, branding, FAQ, theme). It also explicitly carves out what it does NOT do ('Testimonials are NOT configurable here'), which separates it from sibling coupon/plan tools.

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 routing: 'Use list_apps first for app_id', run stages in order (overview -> plans -> coupon -> branding -> content -> finish), use dry_run to preview, and after plan changes run `bun run plans:sync`. It names alternatives and preconditions (standalone tools for reversing effects, form stages refused on clients without elicitation).

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