pup_get_default_plans

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the meaning of the returned data, especially the parent-review status, but it does not describe behavioral details like response shape, error cases, or any implicit constraints. There is no contradiction with the 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 with no wasted words. The core concept is front-loaded, and the parenthetical definition of what a default plan means earns its place by making the tool self-explanatory.

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 read-only lookup with one parameter, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns: the weekday-by-weekday default dismissal plan and the parent-review status. There is no output schema, so the description could be more explicit about the exact shape, but the current description is complete enough for an agent to know when and why to call it.

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%, and the student_id parameter already has a helpful description noting it comes from pup_list_students. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the explanatory weight.

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 identifies the resource clearly: a student's weekly default dismissal plan, including whether it still needs parent review. This goes beyond the tool name by explaining what 'default plans' mean and what the caller can expect. It is distinguishable from siblings like pup_get_plan and pup_list_plans because it emphasizes 'defaults' and 'parent review', though it does not explicitly use a verb like 'retrieves'.

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 this tool is for retrieving a student's default weekly dismissal plan and its review status. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over pup_get_plan, pup_list_plans, or pup_set_default_plans, and it gives no when-not-to-use guidance. The intended use is inferable but not stated.

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