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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden — and it does disclose the source ('Buku Pedoman XH Agents revisi v2, Bagian 8'), the data-not-instructions nature of the output, and the exclusion of payment details. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup, which is the main remaining gap.

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 purpose, then source, then output nature, then parameter behavior — four short lines, each earning its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the effective return shape (the six enumerated fields), the source, and the scope exclusion. Only the explicit read-only/side-effect statement 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% and the single 'paket' parameter has no description, type hints, or enum. The description fully compensates by giving the domain (1..5), the optionality, and the default behavior when omitted (all five packages).

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 ('Daftar 5 paket XH Agents') and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (nama, kondisi awal, isi, harga, jadwal bayar, dukungan). It also explicitly carves itself away from info_pembayaran, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the optional-scope behavior ('paket: 1..5 (opsional). Tanpa paket -> kelima paket') and redirects payment questions to info_pembayaran. It stops short of stating when to prefer a specific paket over the full list, but the conditional behavior is explicit.

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