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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds two pieces of context those annotations do not carry: the caller must be an authenticated organisation, and an authoritative payment must already exist. That is genuine added value, but it says nothing about the consequence of a duplicate submission, whether a payment is consumed, or what the created plan contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is sized correctly for what it attempts, though the brevity is partly achieved by omitting information the tool needs rather than by editorial discipline.

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?

This is a high-complexity creation tool with a two-variant oneOf intake, ~20 required nested fields, a preferred intake version, a mandatory safetyAcknowledged flag, and an idempotencyKey. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description omits which intake variant is current, how safety acknowledgement is satisfied, and how the idempotency key should be generated or reused — all material for correct invocation.

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 only 33%: orderId is documented in the schema, while intake and idempotencyKey are not. The description mentions no parameter at all — not the idempotencyKey, not which of the two intake variants to send, not how orderId is obtained. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 verb and resource ("Create a plan") plus two scoping conditions (authenticated organisation, post-payment). However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings such as shoot_plan_revise, shoot_plan_quote, or shoot_plan_revision_preview, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 clause "after authoritative payment confirmation" implies a precondition for calling, which is real guidance. But it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not condition, so an agent cannot tell from the text whether this is the first step or a follow-up to shoot_plan_quote.

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