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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It reveals relevant behavioral context: the catalogue is public and prices are localized to the user's currency, suggesting a read-only, user-scoped operation. However, it does not clarify authentication requirements, whether the result is a complete list, or any side effects (though 'List' strongly implies none).

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 sentence that front-loads the key information: the list type, examples, and currency behavior. Every element earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of the title.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should explain the return content, and it does: a list of public plans and add-ons with prices in the user's currency. It could be more precise about field structure or whether the list is exhaustive, but for a simple catalogue with zero parameters, it is largely complete.

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 schema is empty and the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about the implicit output scope (public plans, add-ons, user currency) even though there are no parameters to document. This satisfies the semantic need without any parameter-specific elaboration.

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 clear action ('List') and a specific resource ('public plans + add-ons') with concrete examples (Extra Agent Slot, SDR sender pair) and pricing in user currency. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_subscription_limits or get_agent_plan_limits, but 'public pricing catalogue' makes the purpose distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_subscription, get_subscription_limits, or get_balance. The word 'public' implies it is for browsing catalogue pricing, but there is no explicit when/when-not or reference to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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