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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read. The description adds the context that this is a 'Protocol checklist' and the 'ordered' nature, which is not in the annotations. It doesn't describe what happens if an invalid module is passed, but the enum schema prevents that. The description aligns perfectly with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 three sentences: the first states purpose and when to use, the second clarifies a specific module case, and the third lists modules. The module list is redundant with the schema enum, but the rest is tight and front-loaded. The redundancy is minor and could be trimmed, but it doesn't hurt.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description fully covers what an agent needs: when to use it, what it returns, and how to select the right module. There's no ambiguity about side effects or safety. The module list is even included redundantly, so completeness is high.

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?

The schema already documents the 'module' parameter with an enum and an example ('equity_95_5'). The description provides additional semantics by explaining that 'equity_95_5' is for the 95/5 share transfer and should not be a freestyle solicitor checklist, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare validation. This enriches the parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('module playbook') and clarifies it returns an ordered Protocol checklist. It also contrasts with a freestyle solicitor checklist, making the distinction clear. This neatly separates it from siblings like list_modules or get_skill.

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 opens with 'REQUIRED when coaching setup' and specifies the exact use case (95/5 / share transfer into the Trust), naming a specific module value that should be used. It also lists all valid modules, which is redundant with the schema enum but reinforces correct usage. This is explicit and actionable.

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