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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'changes nothing' is largely redundant, but 'Free' adds cost information the annotations don't carry, and the disclosure that this connection cannot initiate Soclo-funded planning is a genuine capability constraint. It stops short of describing what a returned plan looks like.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reads, then the capability exclusions and alternatives. 'Free; changes nothing' is somewhat redundant with the read-only annotations but is compact enough to keep.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of preventing a wrong assumption that this tool generates plans. The remaining gap is the return shape — nothing tells an agent what fields a 'plan' comprises — which is a real but moderate omission.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the UUID pattern and the example source of the id ('from a soclo_host_plan_* import'). The description only restates 'by projectId', adding no syntax or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 ('Read a saved Soclo advert plan') plus the required key (projectId), and names the authoring sibling soclo_host_plan_prepare as the thing it is not. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely named siblings like soclo_host_plan_get or soclo_agreed_plan_read, so an agent must infer that a 'saved Soclo plan' is a different object.

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?

Explicitly gives the when-not ('This MCP connection cannot start Soclo-funded native AI planning') and two alternatives with their selection conditions: soclo_host_plan_prepare plus its import for authoring, and the Soclo app when the owner deliberately chooses Soclo AI planning. That is as close to a routing rule as a description gets.

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