Show Company Action Plan Type

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'Returns a JSON object' and endpoint info, reinforcing safety but not adding significant behavioral context beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction.

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: three sentences covering purpose, usage, and technical details. No fluff; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 show tool, the description adequately explains the purpose, required parameters, and return type. It includes API endpoint context. The pagination parameters are unexplained but documented in schema. Could mention why pagination params exist for a single resource, but not critical.

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% with each parameter described. The description only repeats required parameters (company_id, id) without adding new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool fetches details of a specific Company Action Plan Type by its identifier, using specific verb 'fetch' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list, create, update, delete by focusing on a single resource retrieval.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Action Plans by its identifier,' which clearly indicates the use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous given sibling tools.

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