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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior about the returned numbers — unit pricing in cents, and explicitly not cost or margin — but says nothing about pagination, whether all add-ons are always returned, or read-only/safety characteristics.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the most important disambiguation ('prices only') front-loaded. Nothing to cut.

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 zero-required-param listing tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it and interpret the numbers (cents, unit price, not cost). It stops short of describing what else identifies each add-on in the payload, which is the only remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'product' enum is fully documented in the schema (including 'both'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning about filtering semantics beyond what the enum already states; 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?

The description names the resource precisely (paid add-ons) and the fields returned (unit, price in cents), so an agent knows this is the pricing catalogue endpoint. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name a contrasting sibling, but 'prices only — no costs, no margins' does separate it from any cost/margin tooling.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer 'call this to see add-on pricing'. The clause 'Prices only — no costs, no margins' is a useful scope exclusion that steers the agent away from expecting margin data, but no when-to-use condition or alternative (e.g. connectors_catalog, get_free_limits) is named.

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