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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds only the 'agent-native mandate rails' context, which is vague and does not disclose processing details, error behavior, or permission nuances. No contradiction with annotations, but minimal additional value beyond them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and object. It is appropriately concise for a simple get operation, avoiding unnecessary detail.

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 tool with 9 optional params and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain 'mandate rails' or clarify parameter selection, but the existing schema and annotations cover safety and basic return structure. The description leaves some ambiguity about the mandate model, making it only minimally 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 100%, so each parameter already has descriptive text. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema fully documents all 9 optional 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?

The description clearly specifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('one Toofi treatment plan'), and the scope ('one'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_plans and get_demo_plan. Though 'agent-native mandate rails' is jargon, it still conveys a specific retrieval operation.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_demo_plan, list_plans). The phrase 'mandate rails' hints at a context but does not state when to prefer this over other plan-retrieval tools or what conditions must hold.

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