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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns either the original acknowledgement or 'not_recorded', and it is free to call. It does not describe auth or rate limits, but those are secondary for a simple idempotency check.

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 description is compact and front-loads the key result state plus the conditional resend rule. It is appropriately sized for a simple check, though the opening noun phrase is slightly terse rather than a direct verb-led statement.

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 one-parameter, read-only idempotency check, the description covers the important non-schema behavior: possible return states and the resend condition. The missing piece is parameter semantics, but annotations and the simple schema cover most other needs.

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 description never mentions the sole required parameter, clientRequestId. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only implies a command identity through 'SAME command', leaving the parameter's meaning largely undocumented.

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 outcome: retrieving the original acknowledgement of a plan command or 'not_recorded'. It distinguishes the operation from siblings like apply/read/save by framing it as an acknowledgement check rather than a plan read or mutation, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 a clear conditional directive: resend the SAME command only when the result is 'not_recorded'. That establishes when the tool is relevant and what to do with each outcome, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond this condition.

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