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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and idempotentHint true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about what the response includes: ownership, the associated team influencer, and the page in the app where the plan appears.

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 well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then layers relevant detail. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary explanation.

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 list tool, the description fully covers what the tool returns and its scope. No output schema exists, but the description provides a sufficient high-level shape of the response without needing to enumerate fields. Pagination or sorting details would be nice but are not essential for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no conflicting or ambiguous input expectations.

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'), a clear resource ('content plans'), and ownership scope ('owned by the signed-in user'). It also enriches the purpose by noting the influencer/team association and where the plan appears in the app, which distinguishes it from generic list tools.

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 implies when to use it—when the user needs their own content plans—but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like list_scheduled_posts or list_company_posts. There is no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving selection to inference.

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