Get a plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about what the payload contains (state, driver/route IDs, overrides), but says nothing about the sensitivity of contact data exposed by include_contact_details or how much data a full plan returns.

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 with no filler; the colon-list of returned fields is efficient. It is a field dump rather than prose, which is acceptable but slightly dense.

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 usefully summarizes the returned payload shape, compensating for the missing return documentation. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the contact-details flag's effect is never explained.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, including the plans/<id> prefix pattern. The description does not add any meaning about include_contact_details, which is the one parameter with privacy implications, so it stays at the baseline.

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 names the resource ('one plan') and enumerates the fields it carries, which clearly separates it from the sibling list_plans and the route/stop getters. The verb is only implied by 'One plan', so it is clear but not stated as explicitly as a 'Get X by ID' phrasing would be.

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 guidance on when to call this versus list_plans or get_route, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a plan_id from list_plans. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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