PlanLimits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest-first and each entry carries a vendor source. It says nothing about pagination, volume caps, or default time window, so it is additive but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the ordering and source clauses each carry real information. It is tight, though extremely terse for a tool with an optional filter whose default is unexplained.

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 does partly describe the return shape (dated entries, vendor source, newest first), which is appropriate. However, it omits what happens when 'since' is omitted and whether the list is bounded, leaving the agent to guess at the default scope.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'since' with its pattern and format. The description never mentions the date filter or its default behavior, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Dated change log of AI coding plan and usage-limit changes'), which is clear and distinct in subject matter from get_tool_plans and recommend_plan. It never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives among get_tool_plans/list_plans/recommend_plan. The only implied usage is that it returns a log; an agent must infer the trigger condition.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the lookup is scoped to a fixed, closed set of seven tools, which is consistent with and mildly reinforces the annotations, but it says nothing about response shape, errors for unknown ids, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the only constraint that matters. 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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate to invoke the tool correctly, and the enum compensation is the critical piece. However, with no output schema, the agent gets no sense of what 'plans and limits' actually returns.

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 0% and the schema declares tool_id as a bare string with no enum, so the description carries the full burden — and it does, enumerating all seven valid values. It does not state case sensitivity or format expectations, keeping it just below a 5.

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 resource ('plans and limits') and scope ('for one tool'), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_plans. It never names the sibling or explicitly says how it differs, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for one tool' implies the use case (single-tool lookup vs. a broad listing), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and none of the three siblings (get_recent_changes, list_plans, recommend_plan) is named as an alternative. Usage is only inferable from scope.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the complete field set returned and the sentinel convention that 'undisclosed values say "not disclosed"', which tells the agent how to interpret missing data rather than treat it 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope ('All tracked AI coding tools ... with every plan') before the field enumeration, and the data-quality convention is placed last where it belongs. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 well by naming the fields and the 'not disclosed' convention, and 'every plan' implies a complete unpaginated catalog consistent with openWorldHint=false. Minor residual gaps (exact result shape, any ordering or size limits) remain unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, and it correctly spends no words on inputs.

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+resource ('List all tracked AI coding tools ... with every plan') and enumerates exactly what fields come back (price, usage limits, window, models, source URL, checked date). It distinguishes itself implicitly as the full-catalog dump, though it never names the sibling get_tool_plans, which an agent would reasonably confuse it with.

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: 'All tracked ... with every plan' suggests this is the bulk-retrieval tool rather than a single-tool lookup or a recommendation. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to get_tool_plans/recommend_plan as alternatives, leaving routing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the sort order ('highest price first') and that it mirrors the PlanLimits picker, but says nothing about behavior when no plan fits the budget or how many results come back.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the filter, time basis, and ordering packed in without filler. The parenthetical reference to the PlanLimits picker is slightly insider jargon but adds a useful consistency cue.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should at minimum explain the 'use' parameter and the empty-result case. Neither is present, so the definition is thin for a tool whose schema does no explanatory work.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It clarifies budget_usd as a monthly USD figure, but the 'use' enum (individual/team/any) is never mentioned or explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 resource (plans) and scope (priced at or under a monthly USD budget), plus the sort order. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_plans, so an agent must guess whether this is the filtered/sorted variant or a duplicate of the plain listing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though list_plans and get_tool_plans are obvious candidates for the same intent. The reference to the 'PlanLimits budget picker' points at an internal UI feature rather than telling the agent when to prefer this tool.

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