pup_get_plan

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

With readOnlyHint=true already signaling a safe read operation, the description adds value by explaining that the response includes a lock status tied to whether the cutoff has passed. It also clarifies the composition of the returned plan, which is useful behavioral context beyond 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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the exact scope and return contents without filler. Every clause earns its place, and the dash-separated enumeration makes the payload easy to parse.

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 getter with two fully documented parameters, readOnlyHint=true, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what will be returned, which is the main missing piece given the absence of an output schema.

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 schema already covers both required parameters with useful descriptions: date format is YYYY-MM-DD and student_id references pup_list_students. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 precisely identifies the resource: the dismissal plan for one student on one date, and enumerates the key fields returned (option in force, note, early-dismissal time, lock status). The singular scope distinguishes it from siblings like pup_list_plans and pup_set_plan, even though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 phrase 'for one student on one date' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: a targeted lookup of a single plan. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over list-oriented siblings.

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