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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: WRITE, human-gated per stage, one elicitation form per call, human-typed values override args, declined stages leave earlier commits intact, each effect reversible via standalone tools, Stripe prices minted only by plans stage. Return contract (returns next_call) is disclosed. Only minor gap is it doesn't state authorization/permission requirements.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose and stage-chain model appear before the finer rules. It is long (roughly 200 words), yet most sentences encode distinct constraints (overrides, refusal behavior, Stripe minting, sync command) rather than filler.

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 complex 9-param, 6-stage, write-plus-elicitation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers behavior, sequencing, override semantics, and reversibility thoroughly. The remaining omission is the meaning/format of the tier and domain params.

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?

At 0% schema coverage with 9 params, the description compensates substantially: it explains stage ordering, price_suggestions ('pass from market research'), faq_drafts ('to seed them'), dry_run ('echoes the form + would-be writes, writes nothing'), and coupon_code shape (SUMMER26-style, seasonal). It leaves tier, domain, and discount_percent unexplained, but coverage is strong overall.

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+resource ('configures an app's hosted pricing page end to end') and enumerates the exact configuration surface (plans, coupon, branding, content). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling standalone tools like update_plan_pricing or create_coupon, which it positions itself as orchestrating.

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?

Explicit on when and how: 'Use list_apps first for app_id', the stage chain sequence, 'Testimonials are NOT configurable here', and the note that form stages are refused on clients without elicitation while overview/finish/dry_run work anywhere. It also tells the agent to re-run `bun run plans:sync` after plan changes.

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