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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the GET endpoint and the existence of filtering/expansion options, but does not disclose pagination defaults, the deleted-state semantics, or rate limits beyond what the schema says.

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?

Three compact clauses: what is returned, how to filter, and the endpoint. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the telegraphic fragment style gives it slightly less polish than a fully formed sentence would.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned fields and the pagination/expansion hooks (with_current_sheet, cursor param in schema). For a read-only list endpoint this is close to complete; only explicit paging behavior is left implicit.

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 every parameter (tag, state, per_page, name_contains, updated_after, last_synced_at, with_current_sheet) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter categories and with_current_sheet, adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured data, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource ('Plans (floorplans) of a project') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, description, folder, sheet count), which is more specific than a bare 'list plans'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling fieldwire_list_sheets, 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?

Gives filtering guidance ('Filter by name, tag or dates') and explains the with_current_sheet toggle, which implies usage. However there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or routing to an alternative tool, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

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