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 is read-only or generative, not whether it requires a prior scaffold/bootstrap, not what the plan contains, and not any side effects. A bare label is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose or outcome for the reader to anchor on.

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?

A planning tool with three inputs, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to explain what the plan is and when it applies. Nothing here covers the input semantics, the expected artifact, or the relationship to sibling planning and bootstrap tools.

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?

Three parameters with only 33% schema description coverage; backendMode has an enum but no description and appType's description ('Application type.') is circular. The description adds no meaning for any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 namespaced restatement of the tool name plus the word 'planner' in parentheses. It never states a verb or what an integration plan actually produces, and it does nothing to distinguish this from the many sibling *.integration.plan tools or from shared::backend.integration.guide.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as shared::backend.integration.guide or the platform-specific integration.plan variants. The agent is left to infer the entire selection context.

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