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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the data content (current plan, prices, Sightglass feature deltas), but adds nothing about auth requirements, plan-gating limits, or freshness — a moderate contribution given annotations do the heavy lifting.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and then when to invoke it. Every clause carries information — plans covered, prices, feature deltas, and trigger conditions — with no 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?

For a read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately previews the return content (current plan, monthly prices, Sightglass additions) and the situations that should trigger a call. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single workspaceId parameter is fully documented in the schema with its UUID format and source (list_workspaces). The description only alludes to workspace scoping ('The workspace's current plan') without adding format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the 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 — retrieves the workspace's current Replo plan plus the Starter and Pro plans' prices and the Sightglass features they unlock. This is clearly distinct from the sibling start_plan_upgrade, which performs the action rather than reporting options.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: when a result names a locked field or a higher plan, or when the user asks about upgrading. It does not explicitly name start_plan_upgrade as the tool to call once the user decides to act, so the alternative is only implied.

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