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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the breadth of the returned state (including amendments awaiting the user's decision) since there is no output schema, though it says nothing about behavior for an unknown or closed plan_id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause adds a distinct returned field. Slightly dense as a comma list, but nothing is redundant.

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 carries the burden of describing return contents and does so thoroughly across status, phases, steps, amendments and next action. The remaining gap is input-side: plan_id origin/format and error behaviour are unaddressed.

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% for the single required parameter plan_id, and the description never mentions it at all: no format, no hint that it comes from plan_create or plan_list, no invalid-id behavior. With one undocumented parameter the description should have compensated and does not.

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 ('where a plan stands') and enumerates exactly what comes back: status, version, progress, phases/steps with statuses, current step, pending amendments and next action. That enumeration implicitly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like plan_current_step, but it never names an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for obtaining a full plan snapshot, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against plan_current_step or plan_list. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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