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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the tool's behavior: it returns a full workflow, cost breakdown, time estimate, power moves, and anti-patterns. It also discloses usage limits (5 free/day) and tier constraints. No contradictions or missing critical behavioral traits, though it could mention if any side effects exist (likely none).

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 description is well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose and key features. It is relatively concise for the amount of information conveyed, though it includes some promotional language (e.g., 'non-obvious power move'). Could be slightly tighter, but overall effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (sequencing 100+ tools, estimating costs, returning configs), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, comparison, detailed return values, constraints (5 free/day, tier limits). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool provides and when to use it, though no output schema exists to further detail 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema – it suggests being specific for 'goal' and implies budget options via the limit mention. However, it does not significantly expand on parameter use or formats, so it meets but does not exceed expectations.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: designing optimal Zambo Stack configurations for goals. It uses specific verbs ('design', 'sequences', 'estimates', 'returns') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'capability_search', making its unique value proposition unambiguous.

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 description tells when to use the tool ('perfect for planning any multi-tool pipeline') and contrasts it with 'capability_search', suggesting when to prefer it. It also mentions a daily limit (5 free/day) and Zambo Pass tier. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list other alternatives beyond the one comparison.

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