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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real context on top: the exact error code raised, and that removal is narrowly scoped so sibling prices survive. It does not mention auth or permission requirements, but the added failure and blast-radius detail is substantive.

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 action and its identifiers, then the failure mode, then the cross-tool pointer. Three tight sentences with no filler, though the integration-guide sentence is somewhat tangential to the invocation itself.

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 annotations present and no output schema, the description supplies what is missing: the error case, the preservation guarantee, and the follow-up guide pointer. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit permission or auth prerequisites are absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents key, app, currency, and interval. The description restates the interval enum and the USD default rather than adding new semantics, 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 (Remove) plus the precise resource slice (a recurring price on a plan) and the two identifying dimensions (interval, currency). It is clearly distinguishable from set_plan_price and from the adjacent remove_plan_feature / remove_plan_quota siblings.

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 a concrete failure condition (PRICE_NOT_FOUND when no price matches currency + interval) and the scope of the change (other prices preserved), which tells the agent what to expect before calling. It also routes the agent to get_integration_guide for downstream app code, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with set_plan_price for the overwrite-vs-remove decision.

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