panelica_plans_get_v1_plans_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description mostly restates 'Read-only'. It does add one useful non-structured detail, 'Required scopes: plans:read', which helps an agent understand authorization needs. However, it says nothing about not-found behavior, response shape, or other runtime behavior beyond the annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded with the essential 'Get plan' action, followed by the HTTP route, category, scope, and read-only flag. It contains very little waste, though 'Category: Plans' is arguably redundant with the tool's resource namespace.

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 single-ID GET endpoint, the description provides the route, required scope, and safety profile, which is enough to attempt invocation. However, there is no output schema to explain return values, and the description does not describe what a 'plan' contains or how errors are signaled, so an agent has to infer the result structure from surrounding context.

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 already documents the single required 'id' parameter as 'Path parameter: id', so schema coverage is 100%. The description's HTTP path also shows ':id' but supplies no additional meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or semantics beyond that it is the plan identifier.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get plan') and reinforces it with the HTTP line 'GET /v1/plans/:id', so an agent can see this fetches a single plan by ID. It is distinguishable from the sibling list endpoint 'panelica_plans_get_v1_plans' by the ':id' path segment, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as listing plans, creating, updating, or deleting plans. The read-only flag and required scope imply safe retrieval use, but the description does not state the natural trigger condition, e.g., 'when you already have a plan ID'.

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