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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it characterizes the data as live rather than committed, and discloses the default suppression of Stripe price/product IDs. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place, with the return contents front-loaded and the guidance and parameter caveat following. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly describes the return shape, and with no annotations on a read-style catalog tool the remaining burden is light. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for include_stripe_ids by explaining exactly what that flag gates. app_id is left undefined, though its meaning is inferable from the sibling list_apps tool.

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 ('Download') and resource ('an app's live plan catalog') and enumerates the payload contents (tiers, names, prices, trial, machine-readable limits). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_apps, list_coupons, and the update_plan_* mutators.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: this is the source of truth that `bun run plans:sync` regenerates plans.json from, so the agent should diff against it rather than the committed file. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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