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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds a content inventory of the returned fields, which is mildly useful, but says nothing about failure modes for an invalid kind or about the detail-mode tradeoff already in the schema.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or restated title. The trailing list of returned artifacts is dense but every clause carries content.

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 an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and complete annotations, most structural gaps are already filled elsewhere. The remaining gap is routing: nothing explains the relationship between this tool and the plan_room/plan_project siblings, which is the one thing an agent still needs.

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 both parameters carry enum descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes "one kind of space" and does not add format or selection guidance beyond the enum values already documented.

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 gives a specific verb ("Returns") plus a concrete resource ("the room planner's fields for one kind of space") and enumerates the payload contents (figures, surfaces, finish ids, scope questions, rows). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from similarly-named siblings such as plan_room, plan_project, or get_calculator.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. An agent reading this cannot tell why it would call get_planner rather than plan_room or plan_project, which is a real risk given the overlapping planning vocabulary in the sibling list.

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