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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only, safe nature is established. The description adds only the word 'current,' implying live/up-to-date pricing, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response format or whether pricing data is cached or fetched live.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the concrete tiers. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the agent will get back: plan names, prices, and included features. It could be more explicit about the shape of the response or whether Enterprise requires contacting sales, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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 100%, and the only parameter tier is fully documented with an enum and the instruction 'Return just one tier. Omit for all tiers.' The description reiterates the tier names but adds no significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource: Apirro's pricing plans, enumerating all four tiers. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like explain_readiness_signal or get_agentic_commerce_glossary because it is exclusively about pricing.

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?

No usage guidance is provided beyond the basic action. There is no statement about when to choose this tool over siblings, when to pass a tier, or any exclusions/alternatives. The context in which this tool is preferred is left completely implicit.

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