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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does: it discloses that the data is private/account-scoped and explicitly reassures that no booking intent is created, which is the behavior an agent most needs to trust before calling.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, front-loading the read scope and ending on the side-effect boundary. Nothing repeats the annotations verbatim or wastes space.

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 no elaboration, and the description covers the remaining essentials: what the plan contains, that it is private, and that it is side-effect free. Only the relationship to overlapping read siblings is left implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention of the returned sections is a bonus rather than a substitute for missing parameter documentation.

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 (read your private plan) and enumerates the contents: booked tickets, requests, as-planned capacity. The closing clause 'Never creates booking intent' sharpens the boundary against request_booking, though it is framed as a negation rather than an explicit sibling comparison.

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?

Usage is implied by 'read your private plan' and the no-side-effects note, but the description never says when to prefer this over adjacent read tools in the list, such as get_capacity or get_subscription_status, which overlap with 'as-planned capacity' and plan data.

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