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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing the advisory-only nature, that estimates derive solely from user-confirmed measurements, and that missing measurements trigger a clarifying question rather than a guess — behavior no annotation conveys.

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 and the length is modest, but the prose is dense with abstract noun phrases ('provisional platform capabilities,' 'Separates source, execution-platform and host connectors') that cost reading effort without resolving meaning. The closing constraint sentence is the most useful and could have been placed earlier.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the read-only constraints are well covered. The gap is input-side: for an 8-parameter tool with a nested measurement object and zero schema descriptions, an agent cannot know what to supply for the non-required fields without trial and error.

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% across 8 parameters including a nested measurements object with ten typed fields, so the description must carry the explanatory load and largely does not. It hints at `measurements.confirmed` ('user-confirmed measurements') and gestures at context gaps and sync readiness, but `goal`, `where_stuck`, `manual_steps`, `target_platform`, `required_inputs` and `available_inputs` are never explained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Build advisory human-reviewed workflow options') and enumerates the inputs it reasons over (accessible agents, context gaps, connection/sync readiness, platform capabilities). It also implicitly separates itself from execution siblings via 'Never executes, connects, schedules or deploys,' though it never names a concrete sibling alternative.

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 'Never executes, connects, schedules or deploys' clause establishes a clear when-not boundary, which is valuable in a family containing deploy_agent, create_agent_from_process and invoke_agent. However, it never says positively when to reach for this tool versus recommend_agent or create_agent_from_process, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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