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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: sign-in is required, the response is a detailed day-by-day plan, and seq is a version token for edit_plan.

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?

The description front-loads purpose but is one very dense sentence with nested parentheses and semicolons. The output detail is useful, especially without an output schema, but the structure is hard to scan and could be organized more clearly.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly for days, stops, bookings and seq. It still omits error/not-found behavior and top-level response framing, but it is largely complete for a read-only lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter plan_id already says it comes from list_my_plans. The description does not add further meaning about plan_id, so the 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 makes clear that it returns one signed-in traveller's plan day by day, including stops, bookings and seq. It does not open with an explicit verb, but the resource and scope are unambiguous, and it references edit_plan as the related sibling.

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: retrieve a plan before sending seq back to edit_plan, and sign-in is required. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_my_plans or other plan-related siblings, so the agent must infer the context.

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