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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the burden is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it ties locked fields to plan limits, explaining why this read is the diagnostic for gated content, and frames the plan as the gate for research. It does not add rate-limit or response-format detail, but the annotation coverage makes that acceptable.

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 what the tool returns, followed by a clean usage sentence. The return-field enumeration is somewhat long but every item is informative rather than filler; slight trimming would make it tighter.

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 shoulders the burden by enumerating the returned fields and explaining the diagnostic role of the tool. For a simple read with two schema-documented optional params, this is nearly complete; only return value ordering/shape nuances are left unspecified.

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%, so projectId and workspaceId are already fully documented in the schema (source, purpose, and when workspaceId is required). The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource (retrieve the user's Replo/Sightglass plan) and enumerates exactly what it returns: plan name, per-list row caps, estimate inclusion, history/trend windows, and research usage. This is far more than a restatement of the title and lets an agent know precisely what 'access' means here.

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 gives two explicit triggering conditions — 'when a result comes back with locked fields and the user asks why' and 'before sightglass_research_company' — and names the related sibling tool. When-to-use and a sequencing relationship are both spelled out, leaving little to inference.

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