get-planner-plan

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond saying 'retrieve', which aligns with the read-only annotation. It does not describe return format, pagination, or any side effects. Since it is consistent with annotations but provides no extra transparency, a score of 3 is justified.

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 a single, concise sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to meaning. This is an example of efficient writing, appropriately sized for a simple GET operation.

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?

For a simple read operation with annotations covering safety, schema covering all parameters, and no output schema, the description is adequate. It conveys the core action and resource type, and the existing metadata reliably informs an agent about required parameters and behavior. It does not mention the need for a plannerPlanId, but that is documented in the schema, so it is not a critical gap.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, including detailed explanations for expand, select, fetchAllPages, etc. The description itself mentions no parameters and adds no additional semantic meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden, and the description does not compensate further.

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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'plannerplan object', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling planner tools like get-planner-bucket or get-planner-task, but the resource type is distinct enough that an agent can identify it. A score of 4 is appropriate because it is specific but lacks 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the appropriate tool for fetching a single planner plan by ID, nor does it list any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves usage entirely to inference, which is insufficient.

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