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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: no agents are run, previews are returned, and booking/reservation/payment attempts are refused with a booking_retired error. This gives the agent concrete expectations about side effects and policy failures.

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 first two sentences are near-duplicates, both saying the tool decomposes requests and returns a preview with specialist roles. The rest is useful and front-loaded, but the redundant opening reduces the conciseness score.

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 no output schema, the description provides a sufficient high-level picture of the return value ('preview with specialist roles') plus parameters and an important policy constraint. It doesn't describe the exact output structure, but for a low-complexity preview tool this is adequate.

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%, so the description fully carries parameter semantics. It defines task as a natural language goal/query and max_agents as the planner count with a default of 4 and range of 1-5, adding meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 and resource: it decomposes a request into planned specialist roles and returns a preview. It also explicitly says it runs no agents, which distinguishes it from tools that actually execute agent teams.

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: this tool is for planning/previewing a decomposition, not for executing agents. It does not name alternative tools, but no direct sibling for teamwork preview is present, and the 'runs no agents' clarification provides usable selection guidance.

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