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

Beyond readOnlyHint=false, the description discloses two important traits: the operation is confirm-gated (preview by default, execution only on confirm: true) and it is asynchronous, requiring polling of get_plan_import. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent would otherwise miss. It doesn't cover failure modes or permission requirements.

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 compact sentences with the core effect front-loaded and the operational caveat second. No padding, though the parenthetical gating note duplicates what the confirm parameter already documents in the schema.

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 correctly supplies the async/polling contract and the confirm gate, which are the two things an agent most needs to call this safely. The remaining gap is that the two required parameters (kind, planId) are never explained.

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 only 33% (just confirm is documented), and the description says nothing about the kind enum (WORKOUT vs DIET) or what planId refers to. It only implicitly frames the tool as operating on 'a plan'. The schema's own confirm description duplicates the gating mentioned in the prose, so the description adds little parameter-level value.

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 states a concrete transformation: turn a plan that was shared as-is (a PDF) into an editable draft. The verb phrasing ("Read the PDF ... into an editable draft") is slightly awkward but the outcome is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as start_plan_import, save_imported_plans, or share_pdf_plan_from_import.

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 a clear follow-up step ("then poll get_plan_import") and a gating rule (preview until confirm: true), which is useful procedural guidance. But it never says when to choose this over the other import-related siblings, so the agent must infer that this applies only to plans already shared as-is.

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