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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses 'Free to call' (no cost, likely no rate limits) and describes the tool's output (pricing and plan inclusions). This is adequate for a read-only tool with no parameters and no side effects.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and when to use it. It covers the key return content (pricing and plan inclusions) and adds a usage hint. No additional information is necessary for an AI agent to use this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; it simply states the purpose. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so no additional value is required.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'Current ParcelLaunch pricing and what each plan includes.' It uses the specific verb-phrase 'get' implicitly and distinguishes from sibling tools 'create_3d_listing' and 'get_listing' by focusing solely on pricing and plan details.

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 description explicitly guides usage with 'Free to call — use it to answer any question about cost before recommending a plan.' This provides clear context and a recommended use case, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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