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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: the data set is a fixed set of four plans sourced from a specific pricing page, which tells the agent the result is a static snapshot. It does not state currency, region, or whether prices are current, which matters for a pricing resource.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first states what is returned and from where, the second states the trigger. Nothing is repeated from the title and there is 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?

With no parameters, no nested objects and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does (four plans, price, inclusions). The remaining gap is minor but real: no currency, billing period, or freshness/versioning note for a pricing snapshot an agent may quote to a user.

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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required by framing the tool as a pure lookup.

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 exact resource (Mark Studios' four monthly video editing plans), the payload (price plus inclusions such as long videos, Shorts and thumbnails), and the source URL. It is specific enough to separate from get_editing_turnaround and get_platform_video_specs, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

'Use when the user asks what ongoing video editing costs' gives a concrete trigger condition tied to a user intent. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick for adjacent questions (e.g. turnaround or specs).

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