Plans — Get settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing scope limits — it says the endpoint deliberately returns only formatting preferences, which prevents an agent from expecting budget data. It omits any note on permissions or failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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 the read verb and the payload description, followed by the scope caveat. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. The only real gap is the undocumented plan_id parameter and what happens when it is omitted, which leaves the agent guessing at the call shape.

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 0% and plan_id carries no documentation in the schema. The description never mentions plan_id, its optionality, or the effect of its null default, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap on the one parameter that exists.

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 ('Get plan settings') and enumerates the returned content ('currency format and date format'). The explicit exclusion of budget data separates it from the sibling plans_get, which a reader can distinguish without opening either 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 note that the endpoint is 'intentionally narrow' and returns formatting preferences rather than budget data implies when this tool is the right pick, but it never names an alternative or states a triggering condition. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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