get-planner-task-details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the response includes @odata.etag and that includeHeaders=true is necessary to access it. This is useful for the agent to understand the response contents and how to retrieve the ETag, which is not covered by the annotations.

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 extremely concise: one clear sentence plus a focused tip. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the tip is directly actionable without straying into irrelevant details. There is zero fluff, and every word contributes value.

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?

Given that this is a read-only getter with well-documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is essentially complete. It covers the ETag retrieval workflow, which is the key non-obvious aspect. It doesn't mention response pagination or error scenarios, but those are less critical for a single-object getter, and the absence of an output schema is compensated by the ETag tip.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-referential value by explaining why includeHeaders=true matters: it enables retrieval of the ETag needed for update-planner-task-details. This connects a parameter to a downstream workflow, which is more than the schema alone provides. It doesn't describe every parameter, but the tip reinforces the purpose of a key one.

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 action ('Retrieve') and the specific resource ('plannerTaskDetails object'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get-planner-task' by targeting the details object rather than the task itself, and the name directly reflects the purpose. The one-sentence definition is unambiguous.

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 TIP provides actionable guidance: the response includes @odata.etag, which is required for update-planner-task-details, and recommends using includeHeaders=true to get it. This implicitly tells the agent to use this tool before updating details. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other getter tools like get-planner-task, and it lacks a clear 'when not to use' statement. Still, the cross-reference to a sibling tool is valuable.

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