get_account_plan

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, showing it's a safe, generative operation. The description adds context about generating a comprehensive plan with specific components, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, processing time, or output format details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Builds the account plan') and lists key components without unnecessary details. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized and structured.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters with nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description provides a good overview of what the tool generates. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the output format or depth of analysis, especially since no output schema exists to clarify return values.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add specific meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters influence the plan generation. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it 'builds the account plan' with specific components like stakeholder map, messaging needs, MEDDICC gaps, and unified story. It uses a specific verb ('builds') and resource ('account plan'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on comprehensive planning rather than scoring, classification, or profiling.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'you'd normally spend a weekend on' and referencing a 'buying committee,' suggesting it's for complex sales scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sales_blueprint' or 'get_pre_brief,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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