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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description's added detail about the exact package names and term durations provides useful behavioral context. It accurately reflects the tool's output without contradicting the annotations. It does not mention return format, but for a simple read-only list this is not a significant omission.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('view price list') and then provides precise, complete structural details. There is no verbiage or redundancy, and every word earns its place.

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, zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete. It fully describes the scope of the data being returned. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state these are VPS plans or mention currency/pricing format, but 'price list' and sibling context make that sufficiently clear.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description's structural detail about packages and terms is sufficient.

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 action ('Xem' = view) and a specific resource ('bảng giá TocBien' = price list), then enumerates the exact contents: 6 packages (Mach 1–6) each with 4 term lengths (1/3/6/12 months). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_vps (instance list) and list_templates (deployment templates).

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 intended usage is implied by the name and description: an agent would call this to retrieve pricing options before placing an order. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternative tools, and no exclusions. The context is clear but not explicitly stated.

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