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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only info lookup via 'product info' but never states side-effects, authentication requirements, response format, or that no data is modified. The description focuses on parameter usage rather than behavioral traits.

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 compact: one use-case sentence followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence contributes essential information, and the Args formatting is clear and scannable.

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 two-parameter info tool, the description covers all input semantics and primary use cases. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable. It could be slightly more complete by stating that the tool returns static product information and has no side effects, but it is largely sufficient.

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?

The schema provides only defaults and types (0% schema coverage), but the description fully enumerates valid values for topic and plan, and explains the dependency that plan is only used when topic='pricing'. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states this tool provides PrimaCoda product info and explicitly lists the covered topics: features, pricing, comparison, and onboarding. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'is_primacoda_right_for_me' by focusing on factual product information rather than suitability, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when an AI is asked about PrimaCoda's features, pricing, comparison vs alternatives, or how to sign up,' which gives clear trigger conditions. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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