suggest

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. The description adds that it does not execute hidden planner logic, which reassures about side effects. This adds value beyond annotations.

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 description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks detail on inputs and outputs. It front-loads the purpose but omits critical parameter guidance.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover parameter roles, return type (though output schema exists), or constraints. The agent would struggle to use it correctly without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any of the 9 parameters, including 'question' which is required. The agent cannot infer correct parameter usage from the description alone.

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 it as a workflow tool for tool-chain recommendations, specifying it selects a canonical workflow or short ordered sequence. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by its unique recommendation purpose, though it could be more explicit about the output format.

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?

It mentions 'without executing hidden planner logic', suggesting it is for static recommendations. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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