get_data_plan_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool retrieves detailed information, returns a JSON string, and raises an exception on missing credentials or failed API requests. This covers the key behavioral aspects for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. The background sentence about data plans is brief and adds context without bloating the 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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup, the description covers the core requirements: required arguments, return type, and failure behavior. An output schema exists, so detailed return fields do not need to be listed. It would benefit from explicit read-only or not-found behavior notes, but nothing critical 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does give one-line meanings for both workspace_id and data_plan_id, but these largely restate what the parameter names imply. It does not add formatting guidance, source details, or how IDs are structured.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific data plan by ID'), making the operation unambiguous. It also naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_all_data_plans' by emphasizing the singular, ID-based retrieval.

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 clearly implies this tool should be used when a specific data_plan_id is known and detailed information about that single plan is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'by ID' framing provides sufficient context.

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