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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: newest-first ordering, the status lifecycle values, the newest-firing fields, and the schedule fields — useful for knowing what comes back. It stops short of pagination/return-size behavior.

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-loads what the tool is and what it returns, then closes with the alternative. Dense and long-winded in places, but every clause carries information and nothing is redundant padding.

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, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing returned fields and mostly succeeds, plus annotations cover safety. The only gap is the unresolved ambiguity between the two senses of 'state', and no pagination guidance beyond the schema.

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%, so limit/offset/state/connection_id are already documented; baseline is 3. The description restates the `state` enum and hints that it filters lifecycle state, but it doesn't fully disambiguate the collision between the `state` param (active/inactive/superseded/archived) and the runtime 'state' it lists (running/needs_input/...), which is the one nuance an agent would want clarified.

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 (lists plans on this connection, newest first) and enumerates what each entry carries. It also distinguishes itself from get_plan and fire_plan, so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it ('which of my plans need attention is one call', 'this is where it is read back') and names fire_plan as the alternative for running one. No explicit when-not or exclusion, but the routing signal is strong.

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