Get one AI plan

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile, but the description adds real operational context: async polling semantics, empty results during pending/generating, minute-scale latency, the error field on failures, and the warnings field on successes. This is exactly the behavior an agent needs to avoid misreading an empty response as an error.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return payload before the polling guidance. Slightly dense but each clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is pure filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: state, spend, generated posts, error reason, warnings. Combined with the routing note to get_publication/update_publication, an agent has everything required to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so both parameters (id_ai_plan, id_organization) are already documented in structured data. The description mentions the plan id's provenance only implicitly; it adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('one plan') plus the exact payload returned (state, spend, generated posts), which immediately separates it from list_ai_plans and get_ai_plan_results. An agent can identify the tool without opening the 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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the polling endpoint after create_ai_plan, notes that pending/generating states return nothing and that generation takes minutes. It also names the correct alternatives for downstream actions (get_publication / update_publication) and excludes this tool from those edits.

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