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

Annotations cover the safe-read profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: free domains have some step details locked, and responses follow the account language (German default). It stops short of saying what 'locked' actually looks like in the response (omitted vs. redacted vs. error).

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition, then the mode behavior, then the caveats. No wasted wording.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so for both modes. Minor gaps remain around locked-detail behavior and pagination/size of the structure for large plans.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description explicitly maps the presence/absence of stepKey to different return shapes and points to list_domains via the schema for domainId. That adds real semantics beyond the schema text.

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 specific resource (the domain's current growth plan) and enumerates its components (diagnosis, bottleneck, phases, steps), plus the two retrieval modes. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like quests_and_issues or next_actions immediately.

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 description clearly explains the conditional use of stepKey (structure vs. single step detail), which tells the agent when to call it in which mode. It does not, however, mention the natural alternative of complete_plan_step for acting on steps or any exclusion conditions.

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