List plans

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: plan titles are free text and email addresses/phone numbers are redacted unless include_contact_details is true. It does not cover pagination behavior, but the added redaction context is substantive.

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: resource and ordering first, filtering second, redaction caveat last. No filler, though the redaction sentence restates part of the schema description.

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 notes the return ordering, and the schema fully documents pagination via page_token/max_results. It leaves empty-result and maximum-page behavior unstated, but nothing critical for a correct call is missing.

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% and each parameter is documented with its API filter mapping (filter.title, filter.startsLte, next_page_token), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the include_contact_details redaction rule rather than adding new parameter-level syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 states the resource ('Plans, one per working day, each with its drivers and routes') and the ordering, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_plan or list_plan_stops, which a 5 would require.

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?

It states which filters are available ('Filter by an exact title and/or a start-date range'), which implies when to use it, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as get_plan for a single plan.

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