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. Because there is no output schema, the description carries extra weight by enumerating the returned fields, including pending amendments awaiting user decision. It says nothing about error behavior for an invalid plan_id, which is the remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return contents before the usage triggers, and the long enumeration earns its place given no output schema. The second clause 'where a plan stands' slightly echoes the first sentence's opening, a minor redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description properly compensates by detailing what comes back, and annotations cover the safety semantics. Only the plan_id semantics and failure behavior are left unstated for an otherwise simple single-parameter read tool.

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 0% and the description never characterizes plan_id — no format, source, or how to obtain it (e.g., from plan_create or plan_list). The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, so this is not catastrophic, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('a plan') and then enumerates the payload: status, version, progress, phases/steps, current step, pending amendments, next action. That enumeration distinguishes it in practice from siblings like plan_current_step and plan_list. It never names those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives explicit triggers: 'when the user asks where a plan stands' and 'to find a step id before proposing an amendment', the latter implicitly routing to plan_propose_amendment. There is no when-not guidance or stated prerequisites (e.g., what if plan_id is unknown), so it is clear but not complete.

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