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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by clarifying that the tool performs no account lookup and operates purely on user-supplied input, which is a real behavioral constraint an agent could otherwise get wrong, and it previews the shape of the generated plan. It stops short of discussing length limits, determinism, or what happens with sparse inputs.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome, then input expectations, then output contents, then the key limitation. It is efficient and free of filler, though the middle sentence is a long comma-separated inventory that is slightly harder to scan than a short list would be.

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 ten-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description does the work that matters: it tells the agent what inputs are expected and optional, previews the returned plan's components, and states that no external lookup occurs. An agent could call this correctly without further information.

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 explains all ten parameters, including the one-row-per-contact rule and the sector enum fallback behavior. The description reinforces optionality ('if you have them') and names four of the ten inputs, but omits industry, ARR, your_sector, your_solution and expansion_opportunities, so it adds only marginal meaning over the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource: it builds a strategic account plan for growing an account over the next 90 days, and it enumerates the artifacts produced (power map, whitespace analysis, competitive questions, objection answers, 90-day plan). It is clearly distinguishable from a mutual action plan or ROI case by that artifact list, though it never names a sibling tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: you invoke it when you want a forward-looking growth plan and you already have account context to supply. The sentence 'It does not look the account up' usefully rules out a class of misuse (expecting enrichment) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance relative to deal_strategy_coach or mutual_action_plan_generator.

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