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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the count includes your own offer, that visibility changes after the window closes, and that ordering is 'best first' rather than chronological. These are non-obvious behaviors. It does not mention return format or potential side effects, but for a read-only list operation this is reasonable.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add important behavioral nuances. There is no unnecessary verbosity—every sentence adds value.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is listed, the dynamic count and visibility, and the ordering. It could explicitly mention the return structure (e.g., an array of plan objects), but the given information is sufficient for most use cases.

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 0% description coverage for the taskId parameter, and the description does not explicitly explain what taskId represents beyond the implied context of 'on a task.' The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's role.

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 that this tool lists plans (pitches) offered on a task. It distinguishes itself from siblings like choose_pitch (which selects a pitch) and pitch_task (which creates one) by focusing on the listing aspect. The verb 'list' plus the resource 'pitches' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides valuable context on when to use the tool—during the open window you see the count you're bidding against, after close or selection the full list is visible. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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