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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the rate limit (30 requests/minute), that recipient contact data is stored but nothing is sent at import time, that the response carries created ids and failures, and the underlying POST route. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs and that the hints alone do not convey.

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 'WRITE:' and packed into one dense paragraph where each clause (limit, geocoding benefit, rate cap, return value, storage behavior, endpoint) carries information. Slightly over-stuffed into a single block rather than cleanly separated, but nothing is wasted.

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 write tool with no output schema, it explains the return value (created ids and failures), the side effects (contact data stored, nothing sent), rate limits, and the required plan state. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

The description adds the 100-stop cap and characterizes the payload as stops with recipient contact data, but gives no per-field guidance. This is the baseline case: nested item schemas carry their own descriptions, while top-level coverage is 0%, so the description does minimal compensating work.

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 (add/import) and resource (stops), plus scope (up to 100 per request) and a precondition (writable, not-yet-distributed plan). The phrase 'better geocoding than one at a time' implicitly contrasts it with the sibling spoke_create_stop, so an agent can pick it apart from the single-stop tool.

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?

Clearly signals when to prefer this over per-stop creation ('better geocoding than one at a time') and the plan-state condition ('writable (not yet distributed) plan'). It stops short of explicitly naming spoke_create_stop as the alternative or stating what to do when the plan is already distributed.

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