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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that by explaining the plan's possible origin and what the response contains (structure, phases, policy, status). It does not go into edge cases such as no-existing plan, but that is not essential given the read-only annotation.

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?

Three short sentences each add value: what the plan is, what the response contains, and when to call it. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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, zero-parameter tool, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, the result fields, the generated-or-authored semantics, and the verification workflow after setting the plan. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates enough of the return shape for the agent.

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 tool has no parameters and the schema covers everything at 100%, so the zero-parameter baseline applies. The description sensibly focuses on return content instead of parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'current periodization plan' and states the two plan variants (auto-generated or authored) plus the returned sections. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like preview_periodization_plan by emphasizing 'current' and the post-set verification use.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to verify with this tool after set_periodization_plan and to confirm source == 'authored', which is clear contextual guidance. It does not state exclusions or name the preview alternative for planning scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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