plan_get_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get details' and 'Returns: Plan details' make the read-only nature inferable, but the description does not explicitly state that no changes are made, whether authentication is needed, or how errors are surfaced. For a simple getter this is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but structurally it is clean.

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?

With an output schema present, return details are covered. The tool is basically callable with a single plan_id, but the description omits guidance on where plan_id originates and how this tool relates to the many plan_* siblings. This is adequate for a trivial get-by-ID operation, but not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'plan_id: The plan ID', which largely restates the parameter name without adding format, source, or example context. An agent is not told how to discover valid plan IDs or whether they come from plan_list_plans.

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 'Get details of a specific plan', which clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (plan), and scope (specific). This distinguishes it from list-style siblings like plan_list_plans, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from other lookup siblings such as plan_get_plan_by_type_and_spec.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that plan_list_plans can provide valid plan IDs, nor does it explain when to prefer plan_get_plan_by_type_and_spec or plan_get_cheapest_plan instead. The agent is left to infer usage from the name.

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