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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds a note about checkout not being available, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on other behaviors like return format, pagination, or authentication. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as it adds a bit of context but not rich detail.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the additional note about discovery is concise and relevant. The description is well-structured and easy to parse, with every word contributing to the meaning.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but that parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. There is no guidance on how to obtain or format branch_slug, making correct invocation difficult. The return value is implied ('plans and prices') but not detailed, and with no output schema, more specificity would help. The lack of parameter documentation makes the tool incomplete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no documentation for the branch_slug parameter. The description does not mention the parameter at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. There is no explanation of what a branch_slug is, how to obtain it, or any format constraints. This leaves the agent guessing at a required parameter, a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and names the exact resource 'a club's active paid membership plans and prices.' It clearly states what the tool does and the phrase 'discovery only' distinguishes it from checkout-related tools. It differentiates well from siblings like list_public_classes or search_clubs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context by stating 'This is for discovery only; checkout is not available,' which tells the agent this tool is for viewing plans, not purchasing them. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it, leaving some inference required. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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