Get plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds substantive disclosure the annotations cannot: exact field-redaction behavior. It states that sensitive identifiers are gated behind include_contact_details and that money amounts are never returned, which materially shapes how an agent interprets results.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: what is returned, then the gating rules, then the underlying endpoint. The most decision-relevant content (field list and redaction rules) is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return content, and it does so field-by-field. With only two parameters, both covered, and the redaction behavior explained, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying the names-vs-values distinction for custom fields (names always, values gated) and by adding the 'money amounts never' rule, which is not present in the schema at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One plan by UUID') and then enumerates the returned fields (type, provider, status, owners, seller, sub-accounts, dates, custom field names). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_plans, which returns many plans, without the agent needing to open a schema.

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 gives a clear conditional rule for the optional flag: policy numbers, linked policy numbers, third-party references and custom field values appear only with include_contact_details. It does not explicitly route the agent away from this tool (e.g., 'to search plans use list_plans'), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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