Get Execution Plan Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it states the call does not consume or extend the plan and does not record or imply approval. That is valuable for an agent reasoning about side effects, though it stops short of describing pagination bounds or continuation behavior.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a relevant non-effect clarification.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what a review page contains or at least that a cursor is returned for continuation. It covers the safe-read and non-approval semantics well, but leaves an agent without guidance on return shape or pagination continuation.

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 the schema already documents plan_handle, cursor, and section, including the enum values and default. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve one bounded, read-only review page from a server-issued execution plan.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings such as get_operation_result_page or continue_accounting_workflow.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It clarifies what the tool does not do ('does not consume or extend the plan and does not record or imply user approval'), but that is behavioral context rather than routing guidance. Paging usage is only implied by the word 'page' and the schema's cursor parameter.

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