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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'READ-ONLY' is largely redundant but consistent. The description nonetheless adds real context beyond the annotations: the dual behavior (detail vs. async-operation polling) and what each mode returns (plan fields vs. status + problems). It does not mention auth/permission scoping, but the annotation floor lowers the bar.

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, front-loaded sentences: safety marker, core purpose/return summary, mode-switch semantics, then sibling routing. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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, yet the description summarizes both return shapes (plan detail vs. operation status + problems), which is what an agent needs. It stops short of describing pagination or error cases, but for a 3-param read tool this is close to complete.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, inbound_plan_id has no schema description, but the description compensates by defining its relationship to operation_id ('Con operation_id invece di inbound_plan_id'). account_id is covered in the schema. The mutual-exclusivity semantics of the two ID params are the key value-add here.

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 verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Dettaglio di UN piano inbound FBA v2024' (detail of ONE plan), and enumerates the returned content (status, origin address, SKU lines with quantity/prep/label). It also distinguishes itself from the list sibling get_inbound_plans, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Per l'ELENCO dei piani usa get_inbound_plans,' and clarifies the mode switch — use operation_id instead of inbound_plan_id to poll a pending async operation (create/generate/confirm). Both when-to-use paths are stated rather than inferred.

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