Get one AI plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds substantial behavioral context: no object exists while pending/generating, generation takes minutes, failures expose an error field, and generated plans may carry warnings. This goes well beyond annotations and is not contradicted by them.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct value: return payload, polling lifecycle, post handling, and failure state. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition. It is concise despite covering a lot of necessary context.

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 must convey return semantics, and it does: state, spent amount, generated posts, error reason, and warnings. It also covers the temporal behavior (polling) and cross-tool routing. For a simple 2-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already has full 100% coverage, including descriptions for id_ai_plan (with source from list_ai_plans or create_ai_plan) and id_organization. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The first sentence states exactly what is returned ('one plan with its state, what it has spent, and the posts it generated'), using a specific verb and resource. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like list_ai_plans (a list) and get_ai_plan_results (a subset), so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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?

The description explicitly says 'This is what you poll after create_ai_plan' and explains the pending/generating behavior with no data until generation completes. It also names the correct alternatives for reading and editing resulting posts (get_publication, update_publication) and warns 'not with anything here.' This is ideal guidance with no ambiguity.

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