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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') and adds a minor contextual detail ('versioned catalog lineage'), but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, error behavior, or the read-only nature beyond what the verb implies. This is minimal disclosure.

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, concise sentence that delivers essential information without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and parameter semantics, making it only partially complete for an agent choosing and invoking the tool. The 'versioned catalog lineage' is a useful context but is not elaborated.

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 lack of parameter documentation. The description does not explain 'plan_id', its format, or how to obtain it (e.g., via 'list_plans'). The parameter name is self-evident, but the description adds no semantic 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 specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('one exact monthly plan'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_plans' by emphasizing 'one exact' and 'versioned catalog lineage'. This clearly communicates the tool's unique purpose.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single plan with lineage, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_plans' or mention any exclusions. The differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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