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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds extra behavioral context: 'no credit cost', ordering (newest first), and the shape of returned data (per-status counts, credit-reservation info, dashboard link). These go beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details and usage. No filler, though it redundantly states 'Read-only' which is already in annotations. Slight redundancy is minor, but it's otherwise efficient.

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?

For a simple list operation, this is fairly complete: it describes the output content, provides usage scenarios, and the output schema defines the return shape. The only gap is the semantics of the 'limit' parameter, which is a minor omission given the schema's presence.

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. It mentions the status filter and repeats its enum values, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. The limit controls how many plans are returned, which is a meaningful aspect an agent would need to understand.

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 states the tool lists the team's blog plans (the 'Post Planner'), specifying details like status, per-status counts, credit info, and a dashboard link. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_blog_plan and get_plan by naming the specific resource and operation.

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?

It provides explicit use cases: to see existing plans before creating a new one or to check generation progress. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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