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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely non-structured facts: the call is free, and the returned state is not evidence of posting or payment. Beyond those two caveats there is no detail on shape or freshness of the data.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is read and what comes back, followed by the cost and disclaimer. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic style ('Autopilot control and run state') is slightly compressed and leaves terms undefined.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description does name the main returned fields, which is the right instinct. However, with no output schema the burden of describing the response falls entirely here, and 'planRevision, Autopilot control and run state' is too terse to tell an agent what those values look like or how to act on them.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on argument syntax.

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 (read) and resource (the agreed plan) and enumerates what is returned: planRevision, Autopilot control, and run state. This separates it implicitly from the mutating siblings (soclo_agreed_plan_save/apply/clear/intent), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Free' tells an agent there is no cost barrier to calling it, and 'Not proof of posting or payment' is an implied caution about inference. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the distinction from the closely-named soclo_autopilot_read and soclo_agreed_plan_intent is left for the agent to infer.

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