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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new information: the call is free and triggers no AI, quote, reservation, media generation, or render call, which is billing/behavioral context annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing what the returned plan contains.

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, front-loaded sentences with essentially no filler: what it does, what it costs/side-effects, and a recovery caveat. The final sentence is terse and somewhat cryptic ('reconcile') but does not waste space.

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 small read-only tool with no output schema, the description should signal what comes back (the saved plan state) and clarify the clientRequestId role. It covers cost and recovery framing well but leaves the return payload and one parameter unexplained, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It tells the agent that projectId identifies the plan to reopen, but the optional clientRequestId is never mentioned or explained (presumably an idempotency key), leaving a real gap on half the parameters.

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 and resource plus the key lookup parameter: 'Reopen a saved plan by projectId.' The verb 'reopen' (vs. the name's 'get') is slightly figurative but clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like soclo_host_plan_state, soclo_host_plan_recover, or soclo_host_plan_edit.

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?

Usage is only implied through the scenario sentence about interrupted imports ('retain the original IDs and reconcile before another write'), which frames a recovery context. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing against host_plan_state, host_plan_recover, or host_plan_edit, so an agent must infer the choice.

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