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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dependency that callers must first obtain a workspace via create_workspace, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about result volume, ordering, or whether all plans in the workspace are returned.

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?

Two very short segments with zero waste, and the prerequisite is front-loaded before the purpose statement. The second sentence is a fragment ('The commission plans agents can be on') that reads slightly awkwardly, 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?

For a read-only single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and the prerequisite workspace dependency. It leaves ambiguous whether it returns all plans or only active ones and whether pagination applies, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call it before assign_plan.

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 100% and the single workspace_key parameter is already documented as 'The workspace_key returned by create_workspace' — nearly identical wording to the description's parenthetical. The description therefore adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource specifically — 'the commission plans agents can be on' — which is distinct from create_plan, update_plan, archive_plan, and assign_plan by way of the list_ prefix. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'list all', relying on the tool name to carry that half of the meaning, so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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 parenthetical supplies a real usage prerequisite: workspace_key must come from create_workspace first. However, there is no guidance on when to call this versus the other plan-related siblings (create_plan, assign_plan) or other list tools — usage is implied by the name rather than stated.

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