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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explicitly stating that compilation does not execute retrieval and does not contact providers, which materially affects how an agent would invoke or interpret this tool beyond 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 two tight sentences. The primary action and output scope are front-loaded, and the clarifying non-execution guarantee is placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

The tool has seven parameters, nested objects, and an output schema. Annotations and output schema cover safety and return structure, but the description leaves parameter semantics and when-to-use guidance under-specified. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining parameters such as intent, limits, sources, policy, or output. It does not. It only mentions plan dimensions, which helps understand the high-level output but leaves parameter semantics largely to inference from property names.

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 ('Normalize'), names the resource ('a public-data query'), and enumerates the plan dimensions produced (evidence, freshness, latency, result, cost). The added statement that compilation does not execute retrieval or contact providers distinguishes it clearly from the sibling data-returning tools.

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 implies this is a planning-stage tool for public-data queries, and the non-execution statement suggests it should be used when retrieval is not yet wanted. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives or provides exclusions, so the guidance remains indirect.

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