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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description still adds substantial context: free, keyless, nothing to sign, no money moves, nothing has happened yet, no place or price is invented, corpus units carry no price until posted, and regulated trades are never shown as freely doable. That is exactly the kind of operational and safety framing annotations cannot convey.

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 clause and every sentence carries information (verdict vocabulary, safety framing, cost/signer). It is a single dense run-on paragraph with a nested parenthetical, which costs some readability, but little is redundant.

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 7-parameter planning tool with an output schema, the description covers inputs' intent, the shape of the reply, safety guarantees, and cost/authority requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is a 3; the description goes beyond it by clarifying that place is an address filter never scored as work and that entryLevelOnly surfaces entry_set. It does not add meaning for radiusKm bounds or the lat/long pairing, but the schema already documents those.

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 concrete verb and resource ('send an objective ... get back a PLAN') and enumerates what the plan contains: verdict, one exact next call, governed work units, live board packets. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling ('Not provision_work, which builds a funding path for one packet'), 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?

Gives the trigger condition (any objective in plain words, any spelling/language), names the alternative tool and why it differs (provision_work builds a funding path for one packet), and explains verdict outcomes such as entry_work when the objective names no work. The 'when not to use' case is covered explicitly.

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