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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real context: it requires the founder's Programscape sign-in, and it explicitly warns that omitting planId never silently resolves to the most recently updated plan. That silent-default warning and the auth prerequisite are behavioral facts annotations cannot express. It does not describe output shape limits or error behavior beyond the multi-plan selection case.

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 intent is front-loaded — payload first, conditional behavior second, auth requirement last — and nearly every clause carries information about returned fields. However, the core sentence is a single sprawling run-on with a doubly nested parenthetical about approval, expiration, award, balance and reminder number, which makes it hard to parse. The content earns its place; the structure does not.

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 carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so exhaustively — including conditional fields (expiration date and award only when approved) and the multi-plan ambiguity path. Combined with the stated auth requirement, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the single planId parameter already documents the multi-plan requirement and the no-default rule. The prose restates that same rule rather than adding new syntax or format guidance. With the schema doing the heavy lifting on a one-parameter tool, baseline 3 applies.

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?

It uses a specific verb ("Returns") with a specific resource ("the founder's saved Programscape plan") and enumerates the payload — answers, named company, kept/set-aside programs, per-program progress, next action, result note, lifecycle dates, and current review. An agent can tell this is a read of the founder's own plan object rather than a program catalog lookup. It never names a sibling (e.g. update_my_plan or get_program), so differentiation is inferred from the resource name alone.

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?

It states a clear use case — "For a returning founder asking where things stand or what to do next" — and gives an operational rule for the multi-plan case where omitting planId yields named choices and forces a selection. That covers the main invocation decision. It offers no exclusions or comparisons against alternatives such as whats_changed or compare_programs, so the agent must infer when another tool is the better fit.

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