optimization_plan_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds little beyond that: it does not explain what is being 'built' or 'bound', whether apply is required afterward, or how the composite receipt behaves. There is no direct contradiction, but transparency beyond annotations is minimal.

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 with no wasted words, and the action is front-loaded. Its terseness is efficient, though the heavy jargon limits immediate clarity.

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 three required parameters and many optimization-related siblings, one jargon-heavy sentence is not enough. The output schema means return values need not be explained, but the description still lacks prerequisites, relationship to sibling preview/plan tools, and the meaning of the composite receipt.

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 coverage is 67%: profile and adAccountId are described in the schema, while the required 'policy' string is undocumented there. The description mentions 'active-policy' but does not clarify the policy format or what the string should contain, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 names an action ('Build and bind') and a resource ('optimization plan'), but the terms 'bounded active-policy' and 'composite receipt' are jargon that leave the actual output unclear. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like optimization_plan, optimization_baseline, or optimization_policy_get.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool should be chosen instead. The agent must infer its role from the name alone.

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