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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Side effects: none (read-only)', which is redundant with the annotations. It doesn't add other behavioral context like auth requirements or rate limits, but given the annotations cover safety, the bar is met.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the side-effect note is a natural follow-up. This is an exemplar of efficient, scannable documentation.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, an output schema exists (not shown but present), and annotations cover safety. The description fully conveys what an agent needs to know to call it correctly. Nothing is missing for this read-only, idempotent operation.

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 100% – the user_id parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource: 'plan type and admin/owner flags for a user'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get-user (user details) and get-balance (account balance), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the description is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool (when plan type and flags are needed). It provides clear context without being misleading, and the purpose is self-evident among the sibling tools.

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