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 adds real behavioral detail beyond that: default sort order, default exclusion of archived plans, and suppression of private intake/full plan content. It does not discuss pagination or result-size limits for a list endpoint.

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?

Four tight, front-loaded sentences ordered from scope to ordering to filtering to ID linkage; each contributes. The trailing 'Structured result: {plans:[...]}' is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 and annotations covering the read-only profile, the description only needed to cover scope, ordering, filtering defaults, and cross-tool ID semantics — all of which it delivers. Nothing required to call this list tool correctly 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 100% with a single, fully documented boolean ('Default false'), so the schema already does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description's restatement of includeArchived adds no syntax or default nuance the schema lacks.

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 authenticated organisation's Shoot Plans') plus scope (organisation-wide), ordering ('most recently changed first'), and content boundaries. It also links itself to siblings by noting taskId is 'the ID every other plan tool takes', so an agent can distinguish it from shoot_plan_get without opening schemas.

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 a clear condition for the archived case ('Archived plans are left out unless includeArchived is true') and an implicit routing cue by stating it does not return 'private intake or full plan content', pointing toward the detail tool. It never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full dual-sided guidance.

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