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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns ordered steps, that the order matters, and that it is an interview rather than a report generator. However, it does not state whether the call is read-only, what billing or side effects apply, or how the returned workflow should be presented beyond asking one question at a time.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the operational instruction ('Follow the returned steps in order') comes near the end in its own paragraph. The duplication rationale is somewhat meta and could be trimmed, but the description is still compact and readable.

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 low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers the core interaction pattern and the reasoning behind the ordering. It is less complete on invocation conditions: parameter requirements and billing/cost behavior are left to the sparse schema, and no explicit statement about side effects or prerequisites exists.

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 description never discusses `npub` or `dpop_token`, and schema coverage is only 50% (`dpop_token` has no description). It also leaves a conflict: the schema labels npub 'Required' in its description, but the parameter is not in required and has a default empty string, which may mislead an agent.

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 opening line identifies the resource ('season-planning interview') and frames it as 'a workflow to follow,' with follow-up instruction to 'Follow the returned steps in order.' It reads clearly as a distinct plan-the-season workflow, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself among the many sibling 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?

It explicitly explains when the tool should be used instead of the `plan_the_season` prompt: clients that do not surface prompts can still reach the same interview by calling this tool. No exclusions or sibling alternatives are given, but this is a useful routing/usage clarification.

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