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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it enumerates what the tool returns and warns that its output is advisory, not security validation, which manages agent expectations about the artifact's authority.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the transformation and its outputs, followed by a single scoping caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 compensates by listing the four return artifacts. Combined with a fully-covered 16-parameter schema and complete annotations, the definition is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly, though the boundary against the security siblings could be made explicit.

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 all 16 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameter semantics (required vs optional, enum meanings, the min_executed default), so it adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Turn release decisions ... into') and enumerates concrete outputs: a Markdown release plan, a planning-completeness score, open decisions, and a starter PromptBrake gate policy. The 'planning aid, not security validation' line implicitly separates it from the security-oriented siblings, but no sibling is named directly.

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 clause 'It is a planning aid, not security validation' gives partial when-to-use framing, implying it should not be reached for validation work. However, it never says when to prefer it over build_test_pack or map_owasp_llm_risk, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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