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

The description goes well beyond annotations to disclose key behaviors: topics generate asynchronously and the plan returns immediately in 'generating' status, requiring polling via list_blog_plans. It also reveals the auto-publish behavior for Business/Teams and how to avoid it with autoPublish:false. Annotations are largely neutral (readOnlyHint false, etc.), so the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly.

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 dense and informative but not overly verbose. It front-loads the core purpose, then async behavior, then pricing/feature context, then parameter guidance, and the auto-publish warning. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly tightened. The structure is logical and scannable.

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?

The description is remarkably complete for a tool with 8 parameters and complex behavior. It explains the async response and polling, the auto-publish side effect and its override, and the parameter defaults. Given that an output schema exists, there is no need to describe return values. The only minor omission is explicit handling of edge cases like required startDate format, but that is covered by the pattern in the schema. For its complexity, this definition leaves little to the agent's imagination.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameter semantics. It effectively explains the most ambiguous parameters: brandProfileId (selects brand, defaults to team's active profile), integrationId (target blog, defaults to single connected one), and autoPublish (controls auto-publishing). It does not explicitly cover planDays, timezone, startDate, contentLanguage, or competitorDomains, but these are either self-evident or inferable from the tool's purpose. The coverage is strong for the critical parameters.

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 specific action ('Create a blog content plan') and a specific resource (the 'Post Planner' for a brand profile). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_blog_plans by explicitly referencing that tool for polling progress, and it implies that create_post_draft or schedule_post are for individual posts rather than full plans. The verb+resource is precise and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: it explains the asynchronous nature and points to list_blog_plans for status checks. It also notes the paid-feature requirement (Basic+) and the auto-publish behavior on Business/Teams, which informs whether to use this tool vs alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or compare to direct alternatives like create_post_draft for single posts, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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