Get Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about error handling ('Returns "Error: Resource not found" if IDs are invalid') and output format behavior, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns, Error) and uses efficient language. However, the Args section somewhat duplicates schema information, and the description could be slightly more concise by integrating the format default information more seamlessly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides good coverage: purpose, parameters, return details, and error handling. With comprehensive annotations covering safety and idempotency, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete but could benefit from more explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning the parameters in the Args section but not providing additional semantic context. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific plan in Planning Center Services'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pco_list_plans (which lists multiple plans) and other get_* tools that retrieve different resource types.

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 implies usage context by specifying it retrieves 'detailed information about a specific plan' and mentions error conditions for invalid IDs, providing clear operational context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like pco_list_plans or other get_* tools for different resources.

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