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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is interactive, requires the agent to classify the use case itself, and returns a heuristic hint rather than a final answer. It does not state whether the tool mutates state or describe the return structure, but for a planning tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences front-load the tool's purpose, then give a compact decision tree for how to use it. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition of schema text.

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 no output schema or annotations, it explains the full calling sequence and the agent's responsibility in choosing goal. It could be more explicit about what the no-arg response contains beyond phases and how use_case is used, but the essential guidance is present.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds interaction semantics: phase is the first refinement, goal is the second call after self-classification, and use_case is relevant to deciding whether multiple flows must be run sequentially. This goes beyond the enum labels and property descriptions.

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 concrete action, 'Begin or change an Alter integration', and describes a phased return (phases → flows + hint → plan), so an agent knows this is an integration onboarding/planning entry point. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list_phases, whose name overlaps with the no-arg behavior, so not a 5.

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 an explicit usage sequence: call with no args to list phases, then with phase to see flows, then classify and call again with goal; it also tells the agent to handle multi-flow use cases sequentially. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing to siblings, so not a 5.

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