Show Action Plan Verification Method

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and includes the API endpoint, but does not disclose additional behaviors like authentication or rate limits. With annotations covering the core profile, this is adequate.

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 concise at 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose and required parameters. It provides the API reference efficiently without extraneous text. Every sentence adds 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 the tool's simplicity (4 parameters all described in schema, read-only operation), the description is largely complete. It mentions return format as JSON object. It does not elaborate on pagination parameters (page, per_page) but the schema covers them. No output schema exists, so return format coverage is sufficient. Minor gap: could mention error handling, but overall adequate.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description only mentions the required ones (company_id, id) without adding new meaning beyond the schema. For a read operation with well-described schema, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description offers marginal added 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?

The description clearly states it fetches details of a specific Action Plan Verification Method by identifier, distinguishing it from sibling list and create tools. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'specific Action Plans' make the purpose 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 description instructs to use this tool to fetch details by identifier and lists required parameters. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context of fetching a single item vs. listing implies correct usage. Sibling tools like list_action_plan_verification_methods provide alternatives.

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