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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — not what a plan contains, not what happens if the plan_id is unknown or still being generated, not whether plans expire.

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?

Four words are technically concise and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. No sentence conveys actionable information about the operation.

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 is the only place an agent could learn what a "plan" returns — structure, stages, or linkage to videos — and it says nothing. For a lookup tool in a large sibling set, this leaves the agent unable to predict the result.

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 documented pattern for plan_id, so the schema carries parameter semantics fully. The description contributes nothing about the identifier, which is acceptable at the baseline given full schema coverage.

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?

"A plan made earlier" is a noun fragment that restates the tool title rather than stating a verb+resource. It vaguely implies retrieving a previously created plan, but an agent gets no confirmation that this is a read/lookup of a stored plan object, nor any differentiation from siblings like get_music_video_lookbook, get_video, or plan_music_video.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to call this versus plan_music_video, design_music_video_shoot, get_music_video_lookbook, or get_video. The description contains no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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