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

The '[read]' tag and safety profile are already covered by readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so that adds nothing new. The useful contribution is disclosing the shape of the returned records (including the `custom:<uuid>` plan format runs consume), which no output schema provides; pagination behavior and result limits are not disclosed.

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 the read marker first and the returned fields after. No filler; the only inefficiency is the redundant '[read]' prefix already implied by annotations.

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 field enumeration is genuinely needed and provided, but a list endpoint with two paging parameters should say how paging works and what a call returns overall. Adequate, but incomplete for a paginated listing tool.

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% and there are two undocumented paging parameters (page, per_page with defaults 1 and 50). The description says nothing about paging, page size, or total counts, so the agent gets no help on how to walk large plan lists.

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+resource ('List ... custom AI Office scenarios') and enumerates the returned fields (id, uuid, name, plan value, step keys). It does not distinguish itself from the closely related siblings get_agent_office_plan or list_agent_office_films, so an agent must infer the singular/plural split.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (get_agent_office_plan for a single plan, list_agent_office_films for films). The list-vs-get split is only implied by the tool name.

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