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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral nuance: it returns the exact revision and warns that the output is only a proposal, not production consent or final review, which prevents misinterpretation.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a meaningful caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

Given the low complexity (one well-documented parameter, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is nearly complete. It could mention what happens when no proposal plan exists or describe the return shape, but the core information needed to invoke correctly is present.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single projectId parameter, the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') and names the exact resource ('current proposed document plan') plus a distinctive detail ('exact revision'). It clearly differentiates from write/approval siblings like propose_document_plan and confirm_plan_agreement by framing this as a read-only inspection of a proposal.

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 this tool is for reading the current proposal plan and notes that a proposal is not production consent or final review. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related siblings such as propose_document_plan or confirm_plan_agreement, leaving the routing logic mostly implicit.

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