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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: monetized values are returned as bare numbers with no currency, plus the tool to call to resolve that. It omits failure behavior (e.g. not-found handling), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the currency caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at return shape; it does so for the highest-risk part (bare numeric amounts and their missing currency). It does not characterize the rest of the plan payload, but for a simple annotated single-resource GET this is close to sufficient.

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% with a single required uuid field already documented as 'Replacement plan ID'. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get), resource (asset replacement plan), and scope (single, by ID). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_asset_replacement_plans and update/delete variants without the agent needing to open a schema.

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 a useful cross-tool dependency (call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating an amount), but that is about interpreting output, not about when to choose this tool over list_asset_replacement_plans. There is no explicit when-not/exclusion guidance, so usage is only implied.

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