find_on_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('find'), but does not explicitly state side effects or permissions. Given the simple nature of a lookup, this is adequate but not rich. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 a single, concise sentence in Russian that communicates the core purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the return values are likely documented structurally. The description is minimal but sufficient for a straightforward lookup, except for the unexplained 'handle' parameter. It does not mention any preconditions or context, but that may be unnecessary for a read operation.

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?

The description explains that 'uid' identifies the object, but does not explain what 'handle' refers to. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for both parameters. It only partially does, leaving 'handle' ambiguous.

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 states the action: finding which plans contain an object with a given UID. The verb is implicit but clear ('find'), the resource is 'plans', and it distinguishes from siblings like list_plans (lists all plans) or get_plan (retrieves a specific plan).

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 purpose implies when to use it (when you need to know which plans reference an object), but it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it. No exclusions are given, but the intent is fairly obvious from the context of sibling tools.

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