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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds real value beyond that: it explains that absent step outcomes mean the step never ran, that status is a single state with a reason, and what the firing and schedule-state fields convey. It falls short of 5 only because it says nothing about failure modes (unknown plan_id, missing connection) or return size.

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 content is front-loaded onto the primary return payload and every clause carries information – with no output schema, the enum lists (status values, schedule_state values) earn their place rather than being padding. The weakness is structural: it is one long run-on sentence with no breaks, which makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema and a stateful resource (running, needs_input, blocked, failed, stopped, cancelled, ready), the description does the heavy lifting of explaining the return shape and how to interpret partial completion, which is exactly what an agent needs. It is close to complete; only error/boundary behavior is unaddressed.

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%, with both plan_id and connection_id documented in the schema, including the 'Call list_crm_connections first' sequencing hint. The description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 very specifically what the tool returns for a single plan: the request, each step's tool and arguments, estimated and actual touches, plus firing and schedule state. The verb is implicit ('A plan in full') rather than an explicit 'returns/reads', and it never names the sibling it replaces (list_plans, get_run), so the agent must infer the single-plan-vs-list distinction. Still, the content is specific enough to separate it from its siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling is named as an alternative. What it does offer is interpretive guidance on reading results ('A step carrying no outcome DID NOT RUN... how a plan that stopped part-way is read'), which is genuinely useful at invocation time. That is implied rather than stated usage guidance, so a 3 fits.

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