Show what the plan displays

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

Annotations mark the tool readOnly, and the description is consistent, adding semantics about the active/hidden/layers structure and how quantities are grouped by catalog kind. It does not go into auth or error behavior, but the read-only safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 content is information-dense but the opening sentence is fragmented ('Electrical and plumbing projects and plan layers over the plan') and the return shapes are spelled out even though an output schema exists, making it longer than necessary. The use of labeled inline blocks does aid scanning.

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 read-only query with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the available actions and points to related tools for mutations and per-piece data. Minor ambiguity in the opening sentence keeps it from a 5.

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 already defines `action` with 100% coverage, so baseline 3; description adds the default `active` behavior and clarifies what each action returns, which helps the agent select a value. Not a 5 because it doesn't specify string casing or validation beyond schema.

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 intended function is inferable: this is a read-only query for discipline display state and quantities. It names two modes and contrasts with edit_disciplines and get_home, though the opening sentence lacks a clear verb and is grammatically incomplete.

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 provides clear context by documenting the two `action` modes and directs mutation to edit_disciplines and per-piece layer lookup to get_home. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the exclusions are implied.

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