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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the page cap of 10 and warning that the payload contains personal data (names, phones, e-mails, addresses), which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs for responsible pagination.

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 sentences front-load the purpose and pagination, and the privacy warning is placed before the trailing endpoint. The bare 'GET /plans/{planId}/stops' line is mildly redundant but cheap and unambiguous.

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 sketches the return payload (recipient names, phones, e-mails, addresses) and explains pagination, which is the main complexity here. The unmentioned recipient_external_id filter is a minor gap for a read-only list tool.

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 75% and both optional params (page_token, max_page_size, recipient_external_id) are documented in the schema. The description's 'pages of up to 10' merely restates max_page_size and says nothing about the recipient_external_id filter, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data.

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 stops of a plan'), and the plan-scoping naturally separates it from list_route_stops and list_unassigned_stops. It never names a sibling, so it stops short of an explicit 5, but an agent can still place it correctly.

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 gives one real usage directive ('page only as far as needed') for privacy reasons, which is genuine when-to-use context. However, it names no alternative tools and does not say when a caller should prefer route stops, unassigned stops, or search_stops instead.

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