get_plans

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does convey a read-only retrieval from an external source, but it does not disclose input provenance, error behavior, or the fact that the schema expects an addressId rather than a raw coordinate.

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?

One focused sentence with no filler. Key components — action, resource, source, and query context — are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool this is near-minimal, but the addressId semantics are not clarified and there is no indication of how to obtain the value (e.g., via search_address). The description tells the agent what the tool returns but not enough about how to invoke it 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 0%, so the description needed to explain what addressId means and where it comes from. The phrase 'at the address coordinate' is ambiguous and does not clearly map to the addressId parameter, leaving the agent without enough semantic grounding.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the specific resources ('local plans, municipal plan frameworks and zone status'), and the data source ('Plandata.dk'). It is distinct enough from siblings like get_buildings or get_parcel, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of a sibling such as search_address, resolve_property, or get_parcel. The sentence implies location-based usage but provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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