get_planning_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., 404 if id not found), authentication requirements, rate limits, or idempotency. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, containing exactly the needed information with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 fetch-by-id tool with a single parameter, the description is complete. It specifies what the tool does and the required identifier. The absence of an output schema is acceptable as the return value (a planning application) is implied by the action. Sibling tools cover different use cases.

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% (one parameter with description in schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the parameter's purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides sufficient definition.

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 action ('fetch'), the resource ('a single planning application'), and the identifier ('by its PlanWire id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, search, or find nearby applications.

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 implies usage when a specific PlanWire id is known, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_planning_applications or list_councils. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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