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

Descriptions go well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: this planner makes no LLM call, executes no steps, returns when-to-execute guidance, expected verification, side effects, authorization gates, and stop conditions. It also discloses the permission-gated nature of contact_product_team and the optional-write caution, which annotations alone would not 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?

The selection rule and workflow list are front-loaded, and the final sentence compactly covers the skip condition and the optional-write warning. It is dense but earns most of its length; the enumeration of five workflows is necessary and not padded.

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 read-only planner with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: how to choose a workflow, how to pass the objective, what the plan returns, and when not to use it. The output schema can carry the return format, so the description need not detail it further.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description reinforces that objective should be passed in the user's own words and that workflow is chosen by underlying intent, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific output (goal-specific, verifiable MCP action plan) and enumerates the five selectable workflows with their intents, so an agent can distinguish this planner from execution siblings like submit_agent_feedback or create_topic. It is explicit that this tool plans rather than executes.

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 gives an explicit selection rule (choose by semantic intent, not fixed words/name of action), names the five workflows and when each applies, and states an exclusion condition: 'Skip it for a single-tool task.' It also warns never to perform optional writes merely because the plan lists them.

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