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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: it is free of charge, it verifies provenance ("confirming it came from this host"), and it warns against automatically chaining a planning or re-import call. It doesn't say what happens when the provenance check fails, which is the main remaining gap.

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, action first, then the cost/exclusion notes. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema and no sentence is 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 two-parameter, annotation-covered read-only recovery tool with no output schema, the description supplies what, when, cost, and a chaining warning. It would be complete with one more clause on the failure path (what the agent should do when the plan is not from this host) and a hint at the returned plan state.

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 carries the burden, and it does add some meaning by calling for the *original* projectId and clientRequestId rather than newly generated ones. However, it never explains what clientRequestId is for (correlation with the interrupted request?) or whether it is optional, leaving the agent to infer both parameters' semantics from name and format alone.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Reopen the saved plan") and pins the scenario ("after an uncertain import or edit"), which lets an agent distinguish it from the plain read tool soclo_host_plan_get. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so differentiation is by context rather than by routing language.

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 an explicit trigger (recovery after an uncertain import or edit) and an explicit exclusion ("do not invoke Soclo planning or re-import automatically"), which steers the agent away from soclo_host_plan_import. What's missing is naming the concrete alternative tools for the non-interrupted case, so the guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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