get_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses two useful traits: the data comes from a 'permanent spreadsheet' and the totals are 'formula-computed' (i.e., derived rather than stored), which tells the agent the values are freshly computed. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the use-case following. The parenthetical field list is slightly bulky but earns its place by naming the return contents in the absence of an output schema.

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?

With only two fully-described optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and when to reach for it, so an agent can call it confidently. It omits only edge-case behavior such as what an empty or unknown planId yields.

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 schema already documents 'planId' (return only this plan) and 'openOnly' (exclude Closed status). The description adds no syntax or filtering detail beyond that baseline, merely saying 'all investment plans'.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read back all investment plans') and names the returned fields (Total Invested, Realized P&L, Status), so an agent knows exactly what this yields. It implies its place relative to trade-committing siblings but never names one explicitly, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clear use context — the 'track-record loop', reviewing which entry signals worked before committing to a new trade — which effectively positions it against create_investment_plan and the trade-execution siblings. It stops short of explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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