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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, closed-world, non-destructive text generator. The description adds that it 'Builds text from the inputs only', which usefully signals deterministic, no-lookup behavior, but it does not describe output shape, length, or any caveats about the plan quality.

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?

A single tight sentence plus a short behavioral sentence, front-loaded with the output type and scope. The parenthetical EPIC expansion is slightly dense but earns its place by defining the enum letters for an agent reading only the description.

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 text-generation tool with 3 fully documented enum parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (action plan with immediate/short/medium-term steps), the timeframe scope, and the business-model exclusion. It is nearly sufficient; only a hint on output structure/length is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter already has enum values and descriptions, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description restates the EPIC letters and the self-serve exclusion rule, adding marginal value beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Return a GTM action plan') and resource ('EPIC motion… over 30, 60 or 90 days'), and it names the EPIC categories explicitly. It is distinguishable from the siblings (audit vs consultation vs roadmap) without opening the schema.

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 makes clear this produces a plan for one motion and one timeframe, and notes the self-serve exclusion for non-subscription models, which guides when to pick certain inputs. It does not explicitly compare itself to epic_audit or gtm_consultation, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implicit.

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