Get the verbatim text of a plan clause

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already mark this as a safe, closed-world read, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral guidance beyond that: quote the text verbatim and don't paraphrase it as a promise, which signals the clause is reference material rather than a guarantee. It stays silent on how an unknown clause_id fails, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences: what it returns, when to call it, and how to handle the result. The purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 two-parameter, single-clause retrieval tool with annotations covering safety, the definition gives enough to call it correctly. The only minor gap is that it does not hint at the shape of the returned clause text or its failure mode, which would matter if the agent needs to handle a bad citation.

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 100%, so the parameter formats are already documented. The description still adds provenance meaning by saying both IDs come from a citation and giving the SYN-PLAN-A / §5.2 example in context, which tells the agent where to source the values rather than just their shape.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the verbatim text of one clause from a synthetic plan document.' That is clearly distinct from the sibling search_plan_docs, which retrieves documents rather than a single cited clause.

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?

It states a concrete trigger — 'use it when the user asks why a result came back the way it did' — and describes the call pattern of passing IDs from a citation. It never names search_plan_docs as the alternative for when no citation exists, so there is no explicit exclusion.

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