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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered and the description need not restate it. It adds real context beyond annotations: the output is preparation instructions per form, and the tax rationale (traditional IRA/401k being efficient charitable assets). It does not disclose the output format or length, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the key constraint and rationale. No sentence is redundant filler given the domain framing.

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?

Covers the what, the account types, and the naming constraint for a 7-parameter nested tool with no output schema. Slightly incomplete in that it never states what the returned instructions actually contain or how account/percent inputs map to individual forms, which an agent might want before calling.

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 100% with clear per-field docs including enums and the named_fund sub-object, so the schema carries the load. The description only generically echoes accounts and percentages and adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Prepare instructions') plus the exact resource list (retirement accounts, life insurance, POD/TOD accounts) and says the output includes the percentages to write on each form. This clearly distinguishes it from the will-based sibling tools, reinforced by the explicit 'No will needed.'

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?

'No will needed' implicitly routes agents away from add_charity_to_existing_will/create_will, and 'Charities must be named specifically' hints at the named_charities path over named_fund. However, no sibling is named explicitly and there is no statement of when this tool should not be used.

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