Get a communication plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the API endpoint and notes that body fields are none, which is useful but not extensive. It does not disclose behaviors like authentication, rate limits, or return format, but given the annotations cover the safety aspects, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a clear purpose statement, the endpoint, a note about body fields, and a reference link. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 get-by-ID operation with read-only annotations and a schema that covers the query parameters, the description is mostly complete. It lacks any mention of what a communication plan is or what the response contains, but the output schema is absent and the reference link provides additional context. The note about body fields and the endpoint are sufficient for an agent to make the call correctly.

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 coverage is 50%: the path parameter planId is required but not described, while the query parameter has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The endpoint mentions {planId} but does not elaborate on its format or purpose, so the description adds minimal value over the 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 description clearly states 'Get a communication plan' with a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint includes {planId} indicating a single plan lookup. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling xmatters_get_communication_plans (plural) for listing all plans, relying on the name and endpoint to convey the distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a single plan by ID, nor does it suggest when the plural list version would be appropriate. The endpoint implies a planId is required, but there is no explicit usage context or exclusion.

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