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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context beyond that — and it does: it discloses the return shape (structured data plus a text version), the fixed field order, and the non-obvious requirement to present the text verbatim. It omits error behavior for an invalid studyId.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return contract. The mid-sentence enumeration of the text fields is long but earns its place by telling the agent exactly what the returned text contains.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and largely discharges it by enumerating the fixed order of the text version and dictating verbatim presentation. Only failure/empty-plan behavior is left unspecified.

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% and the single studyId parameter is already documented as coming from create_study or list_studies. The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource: 'Read a study's research plan.' The read-only framing implicitly separates it from confirm_plan and update_plan, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of 5.

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 'Read a study's research plan' rather than stated — there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_study_status, get_findings, or confirm_plan. The 'present that text as given' instruction does add a handling directive, which lifts it above a bare 2.

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