get_planFetch full public details for a single purchasable plan by its package_code: coverage, data allowance, validity, retail price in USD cents. Errors with plan_not_found for unknown or unsellable codes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package_code | Yes | The plan's package_code from search_plans. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description confirms fetch operation without side effects and adds error behavior (plan_not_found). No contradiction.
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?
Single sentence with additional error behavior; no wasted words. Front-loaded with action verb and resource.
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?
Complete for a single-parameter tool: describes inputs, outputs (listed), error case, and safety profile via annotations. No output schema needed.
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?
Input schema describes package_code as from search_plans. Description adds value by explaining what details are fetched with the parameter, though schema coverage is already 100%.
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 it fetches full public details for a single purchasable plan by package_code, listing specific fields returned (coverage, data allowance, validity, retail price). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_plans or get_quote.
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?
Implies use after obtaining package_code from search_plans, and mentions error for unknown/unsellable codes. Could explicitly state when to use alternatives, but context from sibling names helps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
All tools have distinct purposes: check_availability checks fulfillment, get_plan fetches details, get_quote prices orders, and search_plans searches the catalog. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_availability, get_plan, get_quote, search_plans), making them predictable.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a catalog/quoting service. Each tool adds clear value without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers search, detail retrieval, availability, and pricing – core pre-purchase operations. Order creation is missing, but the server may be intended only for quoting.