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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: result ordering ('newest first'), the exact fields returned, and the privacy-relevant note that respondent identities are surfaced as first names only.

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?

Two compact sentences, default behavior front-loaded ahead of the planId variant, with no filler. Some phrasing ('Samla gänget', 'which gang', 'what most can do') is idiomatic and slightly cryptic for an outside agent.

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 description correctly takes on the job of enumerating returned fields, ordering, and both result shapes, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. Gaps are minor: no indication of result limits/pagination when listing all plans.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description, so the description must carry it — and it does, explaining that planId switches from the list view to the full detail of one plan. It does not specify the id format or what happens with an invalid id, but the semantic role of the parameter is clear.

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 clearly frames this as reading a person's meetups/plans, and distinguishes the two modes (default list vs. single plan via planId). It is specific about what comes back (status, gang, pending answer, majority preference, voting deadline), though it never states the verb 'read' explicitly and relies on return-field descriptions to convey 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 conditional 'With `planId`: one in full' gives an explicit mode-selection rule, and the mention of 'option ids for vote_plan' hints at the read-then-vote workflow. There is no guidance on when to use this instead of siblings like waiting_for_me, list_upcoming, or create_plan.

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