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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: 'Makes zero provider/network calls, writes no files itself, never overwrites existing files, and never handles credential values.' It also explicitly states idempotency, canonicality, and the verify-exact manifest constraint, giving the agent a complete side-effect profile. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

The description is dense and long, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and safety guarantees before moving into workflow. It follows a logical order: purpose, constraints, required agent steps, prerequisites, canonicality, idempotency, and confirmation boundary. Some policy-heavy phrasing could be tightened, but nearly every sentence adds an operational signal.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the plan contents, side-effect guarantees, prerequisite auth, verification loop, and repeatability, which is quite complete. It falls short only in explaining the exact return shape and the roles of _corply_context and includeExamplePricingPage, though the rich manifest schema partially compensates.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining _corply_context and includeExamplePricingPage, but it does not. It references 'a valid catalog manifest' and says the manifest must be verify-exact, yet it never clarifies the two non-manifest parameters. The nested manifest schema itself carries useful descriptions, but the low-coverage parameters remain unexplained.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource: 'Generate a reviewable repository patch plan from a valid catalog manifest' and enumerates exactly what the plan contains. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create_payment_project or create_payment_route_draft tools because it emphasizes plan generation and explicitly states it writes no files itself.

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 description provides strong workflow guidance: prerequisites, the calling agent's mandatory steps, the follow-up call to verify_payment_integration, and the instruction not to execute afterPublishCommand prematurely. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or when not to use this one, but the context and step sequence are clear enough for correct invocation.

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