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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by explicitly stating that the tool is free and does not collect contact details, create an entitlement, or start a purchase, which is valuable given the 'sales-assisted' label. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and inputs, followed by a compact side-effect clarification. There is no filler and no repetition of schema details.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The core purpose, relevant inputs, and side-effect caveats are present. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit 'use this when' statement or named alternatives, but nothing essential is missing for calling the tool correctly.

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?

The description maps all four parameters to natural-language concepts and gives some meaning to otherwise undescribed needs_sla ('SLA needs'). However, it mostly paraphrases the schema descriptions and names rather than adding deeper operational meaning about constraints, defaults, or how inputs combine. With 75% schema coverage, it is adequate but not substantial.

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 states a specific action ('Recommend... account plan') and names the decision inputs: expected live-call volume, team size, recurring use, and SLA needs. The second sentence clarifies that despite 'sales-assisted', it is free and does not create an entitlement or start a purchase, distinguishing it from purchase-related 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?

The description implies when to use it—when an account plan recommendation is needed from usage and SLA inputs—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_pricing_info or get_product_catalog. The 'does not start a purchase' phrase signals a boundary but is not a full routing rule.

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