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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Planning only', which reinforces that no execution or mutation occurs, but it does not explain what the generated plan contains, how optimization works, or what the return value looks like.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with two clear clauses. 'Planning only' is a meaningful safety and usage qualifier. There is no verbiage or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and many closely related siblings (e.g., plan_agent_team, execute_best_route, rank_profitable_opportunities), the description is too modest. It does not explain what the plan looks like, how best-profit is determined, or what the agent should do with the result. Annotations cover safety but not operational completeness.

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 needed to compensate by explaining the five parameters. It mentions 'required capabilities', which hints at the capabilities array, but it does not define goal, budget_cents, reward_cents, or opportunity_id. Parameter naming is self-evident but the description itself adds no semantic detail.

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 'Builds a best-profit execution plan from required capabilities', which is a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'Planning only' distinguishes it from execution-focused siblings like execute_best_route, making its role 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?

'Planning only' implies the tool is for creating a plan rather than executing it, but it never names an alternative tool or states explicit conditions like 'use execute_best_route when ready to execute'. The usage guidance is therefore more implied than explicit.

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