zabbix_plan_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by naming the possible result states (waiting/applied/expired), which tells the agent this is a non-blocking, pollable status check. It stops short of noting polling cadence or expiry semantics, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and state enumeration before the routing advice. Every sentence carries routing or outcome information; only minor tightening is possible.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the domain of return values (waiting, applied, expired), which is the key missing piece an agent would otherwise have to guess. For a single-parameter read tool with strong annotations, this is essentially 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% and the single plan_id parameter is documented as the identifier returned by zabbix_plan_create. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (stored plan) and enumerates the three outcomes it distinguishes: waiting, applied, expired. It also names the sibling tools it must not be confused with (zabbix_plan_create, zabbix_write), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: when the user asks what happened to a change they were asked to approve, or after zabbix_plan_create while waiting. It also contrasts the two alternatives by purpose (describe a change vs. make it now), which is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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