Show Recycled Company Action Plan Template Test Record Request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and provides the API endpoint, which is useful context. No contradictions with annotations. However, no additional behavioral details (e.g., error handling, rate limits) are provided.

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 relatively concise (4 sentences), but the first sentence is a direct repetition of the tool name and is redundant. The remaining sentences are clear. Could be improved by removing the tautology and front-loading the purpose more directly.

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 (a read-only fetch operation) and the presence of good annotations plus full parameter schema coverage, the description covers essential context: what it does, required parameters, and return type. It also provides the API endpoint, which helps with understanding. No output schema exists, so describing the return as a JSON object is sufficient. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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, so the schema already documents parameters. The description only restates that company_id and id are required, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'fetch the full details of a specific Action Plans by its identifier', and identifies it as related to recycled items. This helps distinguish it from other show_recycled_* siblings, though the resource name is somewhat verbose. Minor issue: it says 'Action Plans' (plural) but retrieves a single record.

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 provides usage context ('Use this to fetch the full details...') and explicitly lists required parameters, which is helpful. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the numerous sibling tools. No guidance on pagination parameters (page, per_page) is given, which would be useful.

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