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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: plan ids are stable, revision is included, and reading older plans never changes them. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps an agent trust the read operation fully.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by the most important usage note about revision and a clarity statement about non-mutation.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with a rich annotation set and an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs: scope of access, stable identifiers, revision usage, and non-mutating behavior. No critical operational detail 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 schema has no description for planId and only provides a hex pattern, so the description must compensate. It does so implicitly by identifying the resource as 'one owned study plan,' which tells the agent that planId refers to an owned plan's identifier. The parameter name and pattern reinforce this, though an explicit mapping would have been slightly stronger.

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 a specific verb ('Reads'), a clear resource ('one owned study plan'), and the key payload elements ('stable task ids, completion state and revision'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_my_study_plans and get_study_guide, whose purposes are different.

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 gives concrete guidance: 'Use its revision for task changes,' which tells an agent when this tool's output is needed for a follow-up operation. It also clarifies that reading older plans is safe and non-mutating. It does not explicitly contrast with get_my_study_plans for listing, but the 'one owned study plan' phrasing makes the scope clear.

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