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

Annotations declare the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: what gets imported (buckets, tasks, checklists, categories), that a live subscription keeps projects in sync, that existing mirrored plans are re-subscribed rather than duplicated, the 10-plan cap, and the required Tasks and Groups permissions.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by import mechanics, idempotency, the batch limit, permissions, and the return shape. Despite its length, every sentence carries decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 output schema, the description compensates by stating the return value (a result per plan with the project url and the portfolio url), and it covers the prerequisites, batch limit, and side effects an agent needs before calling. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter, high-side-effect import tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by clarifying that a plan id is the Microsoft Graph plannerPlan id and that portfolioName is resolved case-insensitively or created. These go beyond the schema text even though the 1-to-10 range is already encoded as minItems/maxItems.

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?

States a specific verb (link), resource (Microsoft Planner plans), and destination (one Onplana portfolio), and distinguishes itself from generic portfolio tools like add_project_to_portfolio by naming the Planner-to-Onplana mirroring it performs. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

The context for use is clear (importing multiple Planner plans as mirrored projects) and the re-run/dedup behavior tells the agent it is safe to call again, but the description never names an alternative such as add_project_to_portfolio for already-existing Onplana projects or import_sharepoint_list_projects for other import sources.

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