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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds little beyond module provenance and the underlying REST endpoint; it does not mention pagination behavior or result volume, so it is adequate but not value-adding.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The trailing 'API: GET /planning/plans' restates a transport detail an agent cannot act on, which is the only wasted fragment.

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 eight optional parameters, no required params and no output schema, the description helpfully lists the main returned fields, which partly compensates for the missing output schema. However it omits how the filters combine, default paging size behavior, and any pairing rules for the date bounds.

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 88% (only 'status' lacks a description), so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies. The description's parenthetical enumerates return fields rather than parameters, so it adds nothing to filter semantics such as date-range pairing of starts_after/starts_before.

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 (List) and resource (service plans) and locates it in the 'Planning module', plus enumerates the fields returned. The sibling list_plan_items is a different resource, but the description never explicitly distinguishes itself from it, so it stops short of a 5.

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 indication of when to call this versus list_plan_items, list_events, or list_gatherings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the available filters.

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