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 this is read-only or generates artifacts, not what permissions or inputs are required, not what happens on invocation. It is effectively empty.

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 that brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. The single line conveys only the identifier, so there is nothing meaningful to be front-loaded.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the tool's behavior and return shape itself; it explains neither. For a planning tool among dozens of similarly named '*plan' siblings, an agent has no basis to select or invoke it 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% for the single 'clientPlatform' parameter, so the schema already does the heavy lifting and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to.

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 a tautology: it restates the namespaced tool name and its slug ('custom-recording-planner') without stating a verb, resource, or outcome. An agent learns nothing about what 'plan' produces beyond what the identifier already implies.

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 when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of any alternative. Given siblings like shared::product.pattern.plan, shared::room.lifecycle.plan, and shared::solution.capsule.plan, the absence of routing guidance is a total gap.

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