Get Saved Staffing Plan

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

Beyond the readOnly and destructive hints, the description discloses the 30-day expiration window, the provenance requirement for plan_id, a do-not-guess/enumerate guardrail, and not-found failure semantics. This adds meaningful behavioral context an agent would not infer from the annotations or schema alone.

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 appropriately triaged: the core purpose and when-to-use are front-loaded, then the warning guardrail, then an example, then failure and workflow hints. Every sentence earns its place and supports correct invocation without redundant 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?

Given the output schema is present, it doesn't need to enumerate return fields. It covers selection criteria, required input provenance, failure interpretation, and post-restore actions, which gives the agent everything needed to call the tool correctly and handle the result appropriately.

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 schema already covers plan_id thoroughly with a regex pattern, length, and source description, so the baseline is high. The description adds value with 'DO NOT guess or enumerate plan IDs', an explicit example call, and a clear statement that only user-supplied or tool-supplied IDs are valid, which strengthens anti-hallucination behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') and a precise resource ('complete non-PII staffing plan created by plan_staffing or save_staffing_plan within the last 30 days'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like get_quote_status or plan_staffing.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions: buyer starts a new conversation, changes agent platforms, or wants to continue a saved plan before requesting a quote. It also provides a fallback action on failure ('re-run plan_staffing') and a workflow guardrail ('Review the restored plan with the user before request_quote'), which is strong practical guidance.

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