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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the returned content (answers, kept/set-aside programs, review) in the absence of an output schema. It says nothing about permissions or multi-plan behavior, but the annotation bar is low.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the return contents are front-loaded and the audience is stated last. Every clause earns its place.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented single parameter, the description's main remaining job is describing the return payload, which it does. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note behavior when no plan exists.

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 optional planId is fully documented in the schema, including the default to most recent. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a precise verb (returns) and resource (the founder's saved Programscape plan), then enumerates its contents: answers, kept/set-aside programs, and the current review. This is clearly a read of a persisted plan, distinct from the mutating siblings update_my_plan and save_plan_draft, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 sentence 'For a returning founder asking where things stand or what to do next' gives a concrete usage context that maps well to an agent trying to re-orient a user. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., to edit the plan, use update_my_plan) or naming alternatives.

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