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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does uniquely disclose that the tool is pay-per-use with a specific cost on Base, which is a meaningful behavioral/effect information. However, it gives no information about authorization requirements, whether the call can safely be repeated without side effects, returns format/length, or what happens if the input is insufficient.

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 compact, with no wasted words. Every fragment contributes something: the premium-business context, the output structure, the input requirement, and the cost/payment model. Important information is front-loaded.

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 that accepts one free-form goal and returns a structured strategic plan, the description covers the main gist. But since there is no output schema, the agent is left to infer whether the result is plain text, markdown, JSON, or some other format. The 'structured strategic plan' claim gives some shape, but the lack of expected output details and the pay-per-use implications make it only minimally complete.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'input=goal', which roughly matches the schema's 'objetivo/contexto' but does not add deeper semantics such as acceptable length, language expectation, or examples. It clarifies the intended meaning but does not compensate for anything missing from the schema.

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 that the tool produces a structured strategic plan composed of phases, actions, and metrics, which clearly identifies the tool's function. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'generate', the intended purpose is unambiguous. The specific strategic-plan framing helps distinguish it from siblings like 'competitive-analysis' or 'risk-analysis', but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against another sibling.

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 provides some usage context by labeling this as 'PREMIUM (business)' and specifying that the input should be 'goal'. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over competing siblings, such as 'research' or 'report', nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving some selection reasoning to the agent.

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