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

Annotations already disclose the key behavioral profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the plan carries architecture notes and verification criteria, but says nothing about whether the plan is persisted, returned inline, or how repeated calls behave beyond the idempotency hint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the artifact described first. Slight deduction because the trailing list mixes plan contents (architecture notes) with seemingly input-shaped items, costing a little precision.

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 two-parameter creation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the essentials are present. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what the agent receives back (a task identifier, a plan object, a confirmation), which leaves a real gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description loosely echoes 'requirements' and 'verification criteria', but verification criteria are not a parameter, which blurs the input/output boundary rather than clarifying parameter meaning.

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 names a specific verb ('Create') and a concrete resource ('a structured engineering plan') and enumerates its components: requirements, architecture notes, and verification criteria. It is clearer than a bare name restatement, but it never contrasts itself with planning-adjacent siblings such as analyze_task or split_tasks.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the planning step that precedes analysis/splitting/verification, but the description states no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Nothing tells the agent when NOT to call it or what to do instead.

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