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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the data mirrors the published pricing page and trial length uses 0 as the sentinel for 'no trial', which an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then the returned fields. It is dense but every clause carries information; a parenthetical field list is the only mild density tax.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents and does so by enumerating the exact fields. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool or interpret its result is missing.

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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. Schema coverage is 100% and there are no parameters for the description to disambiguate, leaving nothing to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get Vocenya's current plans') and enumerates exactly what is returned: monthly price, AI minutes, overage rate, phone numbers, features, add-ons and trial length. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_industry, get_service and list_locations, which cover different resources.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the 'exactly as published on vocenya.com/pricing' framing, so an agent knows this is the pricing lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no guidance on whether pricing is a point-in-time snapshot vs. needing refresh.

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