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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns 'every' plan and specifies the returned fields, which provides transparency about the scope and content. However, it does not mention whether the list is sorted, limited, or paginated, which is a minor gap for a list-all tool, but acceptable for such a simple operation.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the primary action ('List every...') and the payload details. It contains no filler or redundant information, and the front-loading is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 zero-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently addresses what the tool does and its output content. It could hint at whether results are sorted or if any plans might be excluded, but given the simplicity, the coverage is adequate. The sibling context is not discussed, but that is not strictly required.

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 for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds context about what the returned data includes, but since there are no parameters to document, it appropriately does not expend space on parameter details. The schema coverage is 100%, meaning no undocumented parameters exist.

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 verb 'List' clearly specifies the action, and the resource is precisely described as 'every cloud storage plan we track' with explicit enumeration of included data (prices, storage, security flags, verification date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_provider (single plan) or compare_providers (comparison), so the purpose is 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?

The description implies use when a complete overview of all plans is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like find_providers (likely for searching) or price_history (for historical data). The context is clearest from the tool's purpose, but no explicit guidance is given.

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