tempo_get_plan

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description's job is lighter. The parenthetical 'resource allocation' adds useful domain context, but the description doesn't disclose behavior such as not-found handling, response shape, or any server-side quirks. This is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states exactly what the tool does with no filler. Every element earns its place, and the key constraint ('by id') comes early.

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 get-by-id tool with a read-only annotation and a well-documented view parameter, the description is nearly sufficient. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated because 'plan' is defined as 'resource allocation', but an agent still has no explicit statement of what the response will contain.

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 the schema already documents both 'id' and 'view' thoroughly. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is fine given the high coverage; this is the baseline case.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Retrieve', names the resource ('a single Tempo plan'), and clarifies that a plan is a resource-allocation object. It clearly distinguishes this tool from list-oriented siblings like tempo_get_plans by emphasizing retrieval by id.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you have a plan id and want that single plan. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'by id' and 'single' wording gives enough context to route an agent away from collection-fetching operations.

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