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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description meaningfully adds that each price comes with evidence status, verification date, and source URL — provenance information an agent needs to judge trustworthiness, though it says nothing about pagination or result limits for the all-tools case.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the payload. Every clause earns its place with 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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers both scope and the shape of returned metadata, and annotations handle the safety profile. The only real gap is how large result sets behave when no tool filter is supplied.

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 0% for the single "tool" parameter, so the description must carry the load. It does explain that the parameter scopes results to one tool and that omission returns all tools, but it never specifies the expected identifier format (slug, ID, display name) or the 80-character constraint rationale.

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 verb ("List") and resource ("plan prices") plus the scope options (one tool or all tools) and the accompanying metadata fields. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_tool or compare_solutions, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

"for one tool or all tools" implicitly tells the agent the tool parameter is optional and what omitting it does, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named for related pricing questions.

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