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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned payload categories (multi-currency pricing, billing period, session rules, active/listed flags, payment collection), but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or ordering despite two paging parameters.

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?

A single dense parenthetical sentence with no filler, and the resource definition is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is a noun phrase rather than a statement of action.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing the fields returned. However, for a paginated read tool with two undocumented parameters, the agent still lacks the paging contract and any sense of result shape or size.

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% and the description does not mention pageSize/pageNumber at all, so the agent gets no defaults, ranges, or paging semantics from either source. The description must compensate for the coverage gap and does not.

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 fragment names a specific resource ('the coaching plans the coach sells') and enumerates the attributes it carries, so the agent can infer this returns the caller's own plans. But there is no verb ('list') and no differentiation from siblings such as list_organization_plans or list_diet_plans/list_workout_plans, which are easy to confuse with 'my plans'.

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?

Nothing states when to call this versus list_organization_plans, list_plan_purchases, or the plan-management tools (set_plan_active, set_plan_listed). The 'my' qualifier implies a scope but the description never spells out the selection condition or any prerequisites.

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