Get communication plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and 'Body fields: none,' but provides no additional behavioral detail such as result size, response format, or rate-limit behavior; the pagination note lives in the schema rather than the description.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint, followed by body fields and a reference link. It has no filler, though the reference URL and 'Body fields: none' add only modest value.

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 no-required-parameter read-only GET list, the description plus annotations and schema cover invocation essentials. It lacks any indication of the response shape or whether results are paged, but the schema's pagination note and the tool name provide enough for a minimal call; a short response-shape note would make it complete.

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%, with the query parameter's description listing documented names and noting that arrays are comma-joined and pagination is explicit via offset/limit. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the endpoint, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline of 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?

Description states 'Get communication plans' with the exact REST endpoint GET /api/xm/1/plans, making the resource and operation clear. The plural 'plans' and the list endpoint differentiate it from the sibling get_a_communication_plan, though the description does not explicitly call out 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 usage context or alternative guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this list endpoint versus get_a_communication_plan, create_a_communication_plan, or the other plan operations, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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