Get plan properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds 'Body fields: none' and the endpoint, which confirms read behavior. However, it does not describe the nature of the returned data or any side effects beyond what annotations imply, so it adds only modest value.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the verb and resource immediately. Including the endpoint and a reference URL adds useful details without excessive verbosity. It could be slightly tighter, but it is efficient and free of fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., a list of property definitions) and any relevant constraints. It does not. It also omits guidance on pagination beyond the schema's query note, and does not mention error conditions or special cases. The tool is simple, but the description leaves the agent under-informed about the response.

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 50% (only query has a description). The description does not explain 'planId' or the path structure, nor does it elaborate on query parameters beyond the schema. It only notes that there is no request body, which is not about input parameters. Thus the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('plan properties'), and provides the exact endpoint. It clearly distinguishes from create and modify siblings by the verb, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not mention that this is the correct tool for fetching property definitions versus other plan-related getters like constants or endpoints. An agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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