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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are deduplicated against existing project content, nothing is persisted in the project, the return is a reviewUrl with per-row approval, and error.retryable signals whether a retry helps. These details go well beyond the annotations.

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 core action and the createPlanBoardTool alternative are front-loaded, and each sentence (dedup, review flow, prerequisite, retry semantics, docs link) carries distinct information. It is on the longer side, but nothing is redundant.

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 still explains the return value (a reviewUrl for per-row approval), the deduplication behavior, the error contract, and the prerequisite tool. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the schema already documents text, title, and projectId, and the description largely repeats this (projectId required, richer brief is better). The findUserProjectsTool hint for projectId adds slight value, but with the schema doing the heavy lifting the baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Turn a free-text brief into a planning board' with the concrete outputs (proposed missions, chores/acts, resources). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling createPlanBoardTool, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('the user describes something in loose words'), when-not-to-use ('if the conversation already holds a concrete breakdown... use createPlanBoardTool instead'), and a prerequisite (requires projectId, use findUserProjectsTool first if unknown). This is a complete routing decision.

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