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 covered. The description adds that schedule entries are included in the returned plan, which is useful context, but it says nothing about authorization, missing-plan behavior, or response shape.

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 no wasted text. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool whose parameters and return shape are otherwise undocumented.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with rich safety annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it leaves the caller without context about what a planId is or what the returned plan object contains beyond schedule entries.

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 schema only names planId as a required string with minLength 1. The description does not explain what a planId is, its format, or where to obtain one, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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: 'Get one intake plan with its schedule entries.' This distinguishes it from stackwell_list_plans by indicating retrieval of a single plan, but it does not explicitly contrast with stackwell_get_active_plan.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus stackwell_get_active_plan or stackwell_list_plans, nor any mention that a planId is required. The intended usage is only implied by the phrase 'Get one intake plan.'

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