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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states that the tool 'returns' data. It does not disclose whether the optional parameters filter or select the result, whether this is a read-only operation, or what the response contains beyond the named artifact. The output schema exists, but it isn't described.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; 'Return' immediately communicates the action. It is concise and well-shaped, though the brevity sacrifices useful content.

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?

Given the large sibling set and three optional parameters, the description is too sparse; it gives no hint of how status/layer_id/question_id affect the returned blueprint and no differentiation from related recipes. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description remains incomplete for selecting and calling the tool.

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%, and the description doesn't mention status, layer_id, or question_id at all. An agent cannot infer what these filters mean or which combinations are valid, leaving the only documentation to the schema's bare type/null/default fields.

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 uses a clear action verb ('Return') and identifies a specific artifact: the acquisition-ready agentic control plane architecture and buyer evidence map. This gives the agent a concrete resource to retrieve, though the jargon ('acquisition-ready') and similarity to recipes_workflow_control_plane keep it from fully distinguishing the tool from siblings.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this blueprint versus the dozens of sibling recipe tools, no context for acquisition/sales scenarios, and no exclusion criteria. It doesn't mislead, but it leaves all usage decisions to inference.

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