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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and discloses nothing: not whether it retrieves knowledge, generates a plan, requires credentials, or what it returns. The single token '(knowledge)' hints at informational content but is far too thin.

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 very short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness – a name-plus-parenthetical label conveys almost no information an agent can act 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?

With no annotations, one undocumented-in-description parameter, no output schema, and 80+ sibling 'plant'/'plan' style tools, this description is completely inadequate to let an agent know what the tool does or when to pick it over rivals.

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 'query' parameter is documented in the schema ('Optional topic to locate in the guide'). The description adds nothing about the parameter and doesn't even mention the 'guide' it queries, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 'mediasfu-shared :: solution.capsule.plan (knowledge).' essentially restates the tool name with a vague gloss '(knowledge)'. It does not state a specific verb or resource – 'plan' is ambiguous and no concrete action (create/fetch/outline a capsule plan) is described. It is not clearly distinguished from numerous sibling '*plan' tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no context on when this 'capsule.plan' knowledge lookup should be invoked versus the many sibling planning tools.

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