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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result carries "versioned catalog lineage," some hint of return content, but with an output schema present this adds little beyond structure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrase "versioned catalog lineage" is jargon-heavy for the amount of information it actually conveys, but it costs only one clause.

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?

An output schema is present and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, so the main remaining gap is the undocumented plan_id. The description does not fill that gap, leaving the definition minimally adequate for a simple one-parameter lookup.

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% for the single required plan_id, so the description must compensate and largely does not. "One exact" weakly implies an exact-match identifier, but neither the expected format nor whether it is an ID versus a name is clarified.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get one exact monthly plan") and signals single-item retrieval, which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_plans. The trailing phrase "and its versioned catalog lineage" is vague about what lineage actually means, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Use is implied rather than stated: "one exact" suggests it is for a known single plan, in contrast to listing. However, it never names list_plans as the alternative or states when-not to use this tool, so the agent must infer the routing.

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