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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the output is an actionable 90-day plan with power mapping and whitespace analysis, but says nothing about length, format, or that inputs like known_contacts may be rough notes — modest added value above the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the deliverable and its components; "based on account intelligence" is mildly redundant but the rest earns its place. No bloat, no burying of key information.

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 nine-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description omits how the returned plan is structured or sized, and does not note that only account_name is required while eight inputs are optional enrichment. Adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would want filled.

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% across all nine parameters with clear labels (e.g., current_arr "0 for prospects", known_contacts "can be rough notes"), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds nothing about how these inputs shape the plan, which is the baseline case for high coverage.

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 gives a specific verb ("Generate") and resource ("strategic account plans") and enumerates the plan's contents: power mapping, whitespace analysis, expansion strategies, 90-day plan. It is clearly a planning deliverable, but it never differentiates itself from the closest sibling, mutual_action_plan_generator, leaving overlap unresolved.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the eleven sibling tools. The only usage signal is implied by the resource name (account plan), so an agent must infer the routing decision on its own.

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