list_plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the module-dependency caveat that explains why results may be empty, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result shape (left to the output schema).

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat immediately after. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 a rich output schema, full annotation coverage, and 100% schema documentation, the only thing the description needs to add is the module-dependency behavior, which it does. Minor gaps remain around pagination/ordering of results, but nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, status, bundles, archived, and name_contains are all documented in the schema itself. The description mentions plan types/add-on modules, which loosely supports the 'bundles' parameter, but adds no syntax or filtering semantics 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('plans') with concrete examples (crop or grazing plans), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_logs, list_terms, and list_assets. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the generic query_records alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and by the caveat that plan types only exist when the matching farmOS modules are installed, which signals a possible empty result. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to query_records for more complex filtering.

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