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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /planning/plan_items) and the OPTIONAL-fields returned, but says nothing about pagination behavior beyond what the schema documents, permissions, or rate limits.

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?

One tight sentence plus a short API reference; the returned-field list is front-loaded usefully. The endpoint echo is slightly redundant but costs almost nothing.

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 usefully enumerates the returned item fields (type, name, arrangement, duration, start time, notes, people), which compensates for the missing return documentation. Combined with a 100%-covered input schema and annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so page, per_page, order_by, and plan_ids are all fully documented in the schema with enums, bounds, and defaults. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraint beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 the running order of one or more service plans') and enumerates the item fields returned, which distinguishes it from the broader list_service_plans sibling. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the plan-vs-item distinction relies on inference from the parenthetical.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema note that plan_ids come 'from list_service_plans' hints at the workflow, and 'one or more' hints at batching. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or stated alternative for retrieving item data another way.

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