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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that real people receive push messages, that the plan is locked for edits, that the action cannot be undone, and that a 1-10 driver limit applies. The annotations flag destructive/not-idempotent, but the description supplies the concrete operational consequences an agent needs.

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-loads the critical warning 'WRITE (SENDS TO REAL PEOPLE)', then packs effect, irreversibility, constraints, and the confirmation requirement into a tight block of sentences with zero filler.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what gets sent, who receives it, side effects (lock), reversibility, scope limits, and the required confirmation. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 50% (only confirm_send_to_drivers is documented). The description compensates by explaining why that flag must be true (user explicitly asked to send routes), reinforcing its const:true constraint; plan_id is left implicit but its meaning is self-evident from the name and endpoint.

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?

States a specific verb (distribute) and resource (optimized plan), plus the exact effect: sends each driver their route and locks the plan. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like spoke_optimize_plan or spoke_update_plan, which do not send anything to real people.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions: plan must have 1-10 drivers and the user must have explicitly authorized the send (confirm_send_to_drivers=true). It doesn't name an alternative tool by name, but the 'only after optimizing / explicit confirmation' framing makes the when-to-use boundary clear enough.

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