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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false and openWorldHint false, so safety needs little explanation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the output shape, the conditional omission of self-serve steps for non-subscription business models, and the statement that it builds text from inputs only, which is consistent with the closed-world hint.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the inputs and output. The self-serve omission rule is stated twice (once in the description body and once again effectively in the business_model schema text), which is minor redundancy but not harmful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does: immediate, short-term and medium-term steps. All three parameters are enum-constrained and documented in the schema, leaving little an agent needs that 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline because it decodes the EPIC letters (Ecosystem and ABM, Product-Led Growth, Inbound and Outbound, Community-Led), which the schema only lists as single letters. It also reinforces the conditional behavior of business_model, though that is largely duplicated from the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it produces a 30/60/90-day roadmap for one EPIC motion, and names what the output contains (immediate, short-term, medium-term steps). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the siblings epic_audit and gtm_consultation, so an agent must infer that this one plans forward rather than audits or consults.

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 when to use it by describing the required inputs (an EPIC motion plus a time frame), which gives an agent enough to recognize a planning request. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of when epic_audit or gtm_consultation would be the better choice.

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