bw_get_planning_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly identifies the tool as read-only ('Read') and lists returned data. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if provider is not plan-enabled or missing), nor any potential side effects or permissions needed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, no fluff. Every sentence adds meaningful context.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly lists the returned fields. It covers provider identification, settings, and naming. Lacks mention of error handling but is generally complete for a read tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, which is well-described. The description adds value by clarifying the naming convention (PLCR shares name with provider) and reinforcing the 'plan-enabled' requirement, exceeding what the schema alone provides.

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 clearly states it reads Planning Properties of plan-enabled InfoProviders, specifies the provider types (real-time aDSO or CompositeProvider), and lists the returned fields. It distinguishes from siblings like bw_get_planning_function that read different planning objects.

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 when to use (to read planning settings of a provider) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings. Given the presence of bw_get_planning_function and bw_get_planning_sequence, clearer guidance would be beneficial.

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