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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered structurally. The description adds useful context about the artifact's shareability and a legal disclaimer, but says nothing about output format, generation semantics, or how the pack is delivered.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the artifact description and a brief boundary statement. No wasted words, though the parenthetical input list is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain what the pack contains and how it is produced, but it does not. It is under-specified for a tool whose name implies a generated deliverable.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not — it merely names the fields (name, city, goal, weeks) without any format, constraint, default, or validation meaning. The schema's maxLength and weeks 1-104 bounds are left entirely undocumented in prose.

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 identifies the artifact produced (an independent study plan evidence pack) and enumerates the inputs in parentheses, but uses a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, so it's unclear whether the tool generates, retrieves, or composes the pack. Sibling tools like tdd_move_plan and tdd_path are not distinguished from it.

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 exclusions vs. the 14 sibling tools, and no prerequisites. The only boundary stated is the 'Not legal advice' disclaimer, which is about liability, not tool selection.

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