getPlanSettingsById

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

'Returns' implies a read-only operation, which is the main behavioral trait an agent needs for a getter. With no annotations, though, the description does not disclose auth expectations, error behavior, or explicitly confirm that nothing is mutated; this is a gap but a minor one for a simple retrieval.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to stating the tool's core purpose.

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?

The input schema fully documents plan_id, and an output schema exists, so the return shape does not need to be described. However, the definition leaves the relationship to getPlanById unclear and says nothing about usage context, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 single parameter plan_id is fully documented in the schema, including special values like 'last-used' and 'default', so the schema carries 100% of the parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed beyond the schema.

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 names a specific operation ('Returns settings') on a specific resource ('a plan'), which is enough to identify the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate getPlanSettingsById from getPlanById or getPlans, so the 'settings' versus 'plan' distinction is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement about when to use this tool versus getPlanById or getPlans. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided, so the agent receives no selection guidance.

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