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 safety and mutability are covered. The description adds useful scope detail by saying it returns all statuses including drafts and history, but it does not mention result ordering, pagination, 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 definition is a single tightly written sentence with zero filler. The most important information, that it lists all intake plans for the signed-in user, is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, user scope, and included statuses. It could be slightly stronger by noting how results are ordered or by explicitly pointing to sibling tools for single-plan retrieval.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and focuses on listing scope.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('intake plans'), and clarifies the scope ('signed-in user's') plus included statuses ('active, drafts, history'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like stackwell_get_active_plan or stackwell_get_plan, but the word 'all' implicitly distinguishes it from single-plan retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List all of the signed-in user's intake plans (active, drafts, history)', which tells the agent this covers the full set rather than one plan. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or direct alternative routing, such as telling the agent to use stackwell_get_active_plan when only the active plan is needed.

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