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 adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the data is scraped from an official pricing page and each plan carries a last-confirmed date, implicitly warning the agent that the values are point-in-time and may be stale.

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: the first delivers the return content and freshness caveat, the second delivers the input sourcing instruction. Nothing is padded and the important content is front-loaded.

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 usefully discloses the return structure (plans plus confirmation dates) and the input provenance. The remaining gap is error/empty behavior for agents lacking a pricing page, which is minor for a single-parameter read tool.

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 single slug parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. It does so by stating where the slug originates (search_ai_agents) and that it identifies an AI agent, which is the key semantics an agent needs to populate it correctly.

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 names the resource (an AI agent's current pricing plans), the source (official pricing page), and the payload shape (each plan with a last-confirmed date). It also names the sibling that supplies the required identifier (search_ai_agents), which separates it from the search/get_mcp_server tools. It stops short of an explicit verb phrase, but the name plus content description make the purpose 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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite: the slug must come from search_ai_agents, which tells the agent exactly when and how to use this tool in a chain. There is no when-not guidance or statement of what happens for agents without a pricing page, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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