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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: the meaning of archived: true (workspaces already on it keep it, nobody new can choose it). It also discloses the returned field structure. It stops short of pagination/size behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, and the guidance/alternatives come after. It is dense and somewhat long, with an itemized enumeration of every returned field, but each sentence carries routing or return-shape value rather than filler.

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 output schema, the description shoulders the burden of explaining the return shape and does so thoroughly (keys, trial, prices, features, per-metric quotas with policy/kind/source). Combined with the usage routing, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Only one parameter (app) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it ('Omit to use the current app'). The description adds nothing specific about the app parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource (list subscription plans in the Bridge app) and immediately names the scope of what is returned: prices, features and quota properties. It is clearly distinguishable from get_plan (singular), list_plan_quotas and the mutation siblings like apply_plan/delete_plan.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('billing, entitlement and quota questions'), gives concrete triggers (which plan key to reference in code, what a plan includes, what limits it enforces), and names the alternatives for adjacent jobs: add/remove/set_plan_features, apply_plan, get_app, delete_plan.

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