plan_multi_country_rollout

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add useful domain semantics ('includes_us adds regulatory complexity', 'includes_japan requires standalone wave'), signalling how inputs alter the plan, but it never states whether this is a pure computation or has side effects, nor how failures are handled.

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 one-line purpose statement is front-loaded and the Args block is a tight, scannable list. A small amount of redundancy remains between the Args entries and the schema's parameter titles, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the full input surface including the non-obvious flag semantics. The remaining gap is the operational profile — read-only vs. side-effecting, and whether the plan is persisted — which matters given zero annotation coverage.

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 does the real work: it documents all six parameters and goes beyond titles by listing the accepted 'area' values ('crm', 'safety-pv', 'regulated-content'), giving a regions format example, and explaining the planning consequences of the US and Japan flags. A few entries ('country_count: Total countries in scope') remain near-tautological.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Plan a wave-based multi-country rollout') scoped to a commercialization area, which clearly separates it from the get_/run_/compare_/assess_ siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from plan_system_validation, the closest planning sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the parameter set (countries, regions, modules, US/Japan flags) — an agent can infer this is the multi-country rollout planner, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use plan_system_validation instead when…' guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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