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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it describes the exact return shape (each plan as ready/needs/not_yet with reasons, id, and scheduled status), discloses that needs/not_yet name what's blocking, and clarifies 'reading it calls no provider and changes nothing' — richer context than the annotations alone provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core answer (which plan runs next) and the ordered plan list. The mid-sentence parentheticals make it slightly dense but every clause carries information about states or scope.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the returned states, the ordering, blocking reasons, and the mutation/side-effect boundary. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (connection_id) and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema even stating 'Call list_crm_connections first.' The description adds no parameter meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('which plan to run next') scoped to a connection's latest readiness scan, and enumerates the exact plans returned (Clean-up, Always On, Subscription, Out-of-TAM). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_readiness_scan or get_plan.

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?

Explains it reads from the latest readiness scan and explicitly notes scheduling happens elsewhere (Plans page or scan page), implicitly routing the agent away from this tool for that action. No explicit when-not or alternative-tool naming beyond that, so slightly short of 5.

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