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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by naming the PENDING → READY | FAILED lifecycle and describing the reviewable output (workout days and meals), though it omits details like polling guidance or eventual consistency.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently combines purpose, lifecycle states, and result contents.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with one required parameter, the description covers the status lifecycle and result content reasonably well. However, it leaves the id parameter undocumented and does not link the tool explicitly to start_plan_import, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented id parameter. It does not explain that id refers to the plan import identifier, nor does it clarify format or source; the only clue is the phrase 'a PDF plan import'.

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 specific retrieval operation: status and result of a PDF plan import, including the lifecycle states and the drafted workout days and meals. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as start_plan_import or convert_pdf_plan.

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 implied: this is the status/result lookup for a PDF plan import, likely after start_plan_import. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like convert_pdf_plan or share_pdf_plan_from_import, nor does it state prerequisites.

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