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

Annotations already declare read-only, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: pricing tier and per-call cost ($0.05, B2), a pointer to apis://prices, and the hard constraint that only catalog operations are ever returned. It stops short of stating latency, idempotency, or whether plans are persisted.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and each following sentence carries real information (scope, return shape, cost). It is dense with internal jargon ('phrased', 'Turbo EA', 'B2', 'bundle') that lengthens parsing without adding much for an outside caller.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: coverage states (covered/unmatched/unphrased/gap), Arazzo composition, and a composable bundle. What remains unexplained is what an 'unphrased' or 'gap' result implies for the caller's next step.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, and the description's note on providers mostly restates the scoping semantics. It adds no detail on the stream or context parameters beyond what the schema says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('turn a goal into a grounded plan') and enumerates the concrete transformations: sub-goal splitting, mapping to value stream -> stages -> capabilities, and selecting one catalog operation per sub-goal. It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by naming compose_goal as the downstream consumer of its bundle link.

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 a clear conditional for the providers parameter ('name providers to stay within them, or leave them out to search every phrased provider') and establishes the plan-then-compose pipeline. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, e.g. versus find_plans or gap_analysis for pre-existing plans.

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