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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description reinforces it with 'Read-only' and, more valuably, discloses an access-scoping rule not present in annotations: 'Connections see only their own live or owner-test plans.' It still omits failure behavior for invalid or unauthorized IDs.

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?

Front-loading is weak: the first and longest sentence is a return-value inventory, much of which duplicates the existing output schema, while calling guidance is buried at the end. Individual clauses are information-dense, but the payload enumeration crowds out invocation guidance and reads as a run-on.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return fields, yet it adds the pieces an agent genuinely needs: where taskId comes from, the ID-format alternatives, read-only status, and the connection visibility limit. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 0% (taskId is a bare string), so the description carries the full burden and does so well: taskId is a full task ID from shoot_plan_list, explicitly not a planId, and a unique eight-character prefix or orderReference is also accepted. That is real disambiguation the schema cannot provide.

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 ('Return a full plan') and enumerates exactly what the plan payload contains, so the agent knows this is the detail fetch rather than a list. It references shoot_plan_list as the source of taskId, which implicitly separates the two, but never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like shoot_plan_status or shoot_plan_revision_preview.

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 concrete input-sourcing guidance ('Use the full taskId from shoot_plan_list (not planId)') and an explicit alternative ('a unique eight-character task prefix or orderReference also works'), plus redirects to shotId for progress work. It does not state when not to use this tool or what happens on a missing/ambiguous ID.

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