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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent; the description adds that it only plans and does not gather evidence, and discloses the $1 per call cost. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't explain why integrations credentials are accepted.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then exclusions and cost. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or vague language.

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?

Despite clear purpose, the tool has 4 parameters including a nested integrations object and no output schema. The description does not explain the purpose of integrations (tokens, regions) or what the plan output contains, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation. An agent would not know if integrations are required for certain frameworks or how they affect the plan.

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 only 25% (only previous_scan_id is described). The description mentions 'specific compliance controls' and 'framework' implicitly but does not explain control_ids format, integrations purpose, or how the parameters map to the plan. The integrations object with tokens and regions is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess.

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 uses a specific verb 'Build' and clearly states the resource: an evidence-collection plan for compliance controls. It distinguishes itself from siblings like control_gap_analysis and audit_report_generate by focusing on planning what artifacts are needed, where they come from, and what makes them sufficient.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('when preparing for a real audit, after the gaps are known') and a clear when-not ('does not gather evidence for you'). While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, it implies the workflow context, which is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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