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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the tool reads or mutates state, not what it returns, not whether it requires auth or prior context. A single namespace label is not behavioral disclosure.

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?

It is short, but shortness here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. The single fragment is a label, not a front-loaded statement of purpose, so no sentence does useful work.

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 planner tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter coverage, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs in order to select or correctly invoke this tool 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?

With 2 parameters at 50% schema coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented backendMode parameter. It adds zero meaning beyond the schema, leaving the cloud/self-hosted/local choice and the clientType string entirely unelaborated.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus the parenthetical alias 'credential-planner'. It hints at the domain (credentials) but never states a verb or what the tool actually produces or decides, so an agent cannot tell what invoking it accomplishes.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling planning tools (e.g. shared::integration.plan, shared::frontend.architecture.plan) it competes with. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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