pup_get_default_plans

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

Annotations cover the read-only safety profile, but the description adds a genuinely important disclosure the schema cannot: the returned text is third-party authored and untrusted, and must be treated as data rather than instructions. It also surfaces the parent-review state, hinting at the workflow with pup_mark_defaults_reviewed. It stops short of describing empty/missing-default 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, both earning their place: the first defines the payload, the second carries the security constraint. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so reasonably: per-day defaults plus a review flag. The remaining gaps are edge cases (student with no defaults) and sibling disambiguation, which are minor rather than blocking.

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 student_id is fully documented in the schema (including its provenance from pup_list_students). The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the specific resource returned — a student's weekly default dismissal plan, broken out per day of the week — plus a review-status flag. That is clear and concrete, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the near-identically named sibling pup_get_plan or pup_list_plans, leaving the agent to infer which 'plan' this returns.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no named alternative. With siblings pup_get_plan, pup_list_plans, and pup_set_default_plans all in the same namespace, the agent gets no help deciding when the *default* plan is the right thing to fetch versus a specific plan.

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