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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are private and account-scoped and enumerates the returned fields (names, IDs, revisions), which is modest extra context, but it says nothing about ordering, empty results, or pagination.

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 that identifies the verb, resource, scope, and returned fields with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition carries the information an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only gap is a brief note on result ordering or behavior when no plans exist, which is minor for a simple read.

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 100% and both parameters (qaTest, searchContext) are documented in the schema itself. The description mentions no parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ("List ... plan names, IDs, and revisions") and scopes it to the signed-in account, which cleanly separates it from mutating siblings like save_collection_plan and delete_collection_plan. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so clarity is high but not fully differentiated.

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 never says when to call this rather than plan_collection, save_collection_plan, or delete_collection_plan, nor does it state prerequisites. The read-only listing intent is inferable from the verb "List," but no guidance is actually written.

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