unw_banner_plans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the term-scoping semantics, the meaning of an empty list, and the prerequisite that the session term must be bound. It doesn't say whether the result is paginated or what fields beyond planHeader.term come back, which is a minor gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then the scoping caveat. Slight redundancy in the emphasis ('TERM-SCOPED' plus the restated clause) and the parenthetical aside is a bit chatty, but nothing 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and empty-result interpretation well, but leaves the term value format and return shape (other plan fields) unspecified. The requirement that the session term be bound is mentioned but not explained, which an agent may need.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description in the schema, so the description must compensate; it explains that `term` filters on planHeader.term exactly. It still doesn't give the expected term format/code convention, which the agent needs to supply a valid value.

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?

Specific verb (List) + resource (student's Banner Plan Ahead worksheets) + scope (one term), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling mutation tools (unw_banner_plan_add/create/delete) by being a read-only listing. An agent can pick it out without opening the schema.

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 calling it (a specific term) and explains the interpretation of an empty result, steering agents to check other terms rather than concluding no plans exist. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for the 'other terms' check, but unw_terms is a plausible route and the negative-result handling is the important guidance.

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