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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds scope ('signed-in user's active') and a summary of returned content, but omits the notable behavioral case: what happens if the user has no active plan or an inactive/draft plan.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler; the resource, the user scope, and the returned contents are front-loaded in that order. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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-only getter with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and payload adequately. The one real gap is the absence of any cue distinguishing it from stackwell_get_plan, which an agent selecting among plan-reading siblings would need.

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; the schema description coverage is 100% and empty. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, with only minor credit withheld because nothing clarifies that no filtering options exist.

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 ('Get the signed-in user's active Stackwell intake plan') and enumerates the payload ('supplements, dosages, time slots'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of differentiating itself from closely-named siblings such as stackwell_get_plan and stackwell_list_plans, leaving ambiguity about which plan getter to pick.

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?

Implicit usage is inferable from 'active' and 'signed-in user's', suggesting this is the default plan fetch for the current user. However, there is no explicit when/when-not, no mention of stackwell_get_plan or stackwell_get_supplement_stack as alternatives, and no note about behavior when no plan is active.

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