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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: results are auto-filtered to the caller's org role, routes are deliberately omitted because users click rather than type, export-shaped queries return an `exportNote`, and every page carries a `reach` click path. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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 and the sibling distinction are front-loaded, and every section carries information, but the text is dense with parentheticals (the Import path explanation in particular) that slow scanning. Slightly tighter phrasing would preserve the content with less reading load.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully: it names the returned structure (navigation paths plus `reach` clicks) and the `exportNote` on export-shaped queries, and clarifies scope coverage and the meaning of empty results. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 the single optional `query` parameter is already documented as substring-matched against labels, descriptions, sections, paths and tab names. The description adds value with concrete example values ("rate cards", "goals", "permissions matrix") and the empty-returns-every-page semantics, which goes slightly beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource ("Searches Onplana's product help catalog and returns NAVIGATION PATHS") and immediately scopes what it covers, down to the field it returns (`reach`). It explicitly distinguishes itself from `search_docs` (article body) and `describe_capabilities` (authoritative capability list), so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Explicit when-to-use ("where is X", "what does role Z do") and when-not ("cannot say how a feature is used or which of its settings exist"), each paired with the named alternative. It also spells out the empty-result condition and warns that an empty result is not evidence a capability is missing, pointing at `describe_capabilities` instead. Nothing is left to inference.

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