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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. The one genuinely additive disclosure is the visibility constraint — Connections only see their own live or owner-test plans — which is a permission/scope behavior not captured by the annotations. No rate limits or failure modes are mentioned.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the return payload before moving to constraints. The opening sentence is a long comma-separated enumeration that reads a little list-like, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. Combined with the id-format guidance and the visibility constraint, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly without opening another 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full load, and it does: it names the correct id type (taskId, not planId), names the tool that supplies it, and discloses two non-obvious accepted value forms (an eight-character task prefix and an orderReference). This meaningfully expands what the bare string schema conveys.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and enumerates exactly what comes back: status, version, whether the included revision is used, order reference, and progress details. That is far more specific than a tautology. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling shoot_plan_get, leaving the agent to infer which of the two retrieval tools to pick.

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 concrete input-sourcing guidance ('Use the full taskId from shoot_plan_list (not planId)') and notes that a unique eight-character prefix or orderReference also works. The access caveat about Connections seeing only their own live or owner-test plans sets context. What's missing is any explicit when-not-to-use or comparison against the other read tools.

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