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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint false, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description enumerates the information returned, which adds some behavioral context, but since an output schema exists, this is largely redundant. No additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling are disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the returned information. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary preamble, though the enumeration is lengthy and includes items like contractual links that may not aid tool selection.

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 the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what information is returned. The missing element is usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but that is covered separately. For a simple read-only getter with full schema support, the description is adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single plan_id parameter, so the schema fully documents its format and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is the baseline case when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly identifies the resource: all official information for a Flytel plan. It is specific about the type of data returned (price, fees, volumes, calls/SMS, eSIM, network, etc.), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_plans or compare_plans. The purpose is clear from the tool name and description, though no verb like 'retrieve' is included.

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. It does not mention list_plans as the source for plan_id or suggest using compare_plans for comparisons. Usage is only implied by the nature of a get-detail tool.

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