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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains that the tool returns 'available plans at the given ZIP with rates, contract length, early-termination fees, and signup requirements' and discloses the impact of omitting zip_code. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only or auth requirements, it implies a safe query operation.

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 concise at 5 sentences, front-loading purpose, then usage examples, then behavioral details, then exclusions. Every sentence adds necessary information without 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?

Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (plans, rates, contract length, fees, signup requirements). It addresses sibling tools and provides complete context for an agent to invoke 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral effect of zip_code (filtering vs statewide catalog) and advising when to pass it. Provider_slug is adequately described in 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get plans, pricing, and terms for a specific Texas utility provider'. It specifies the resource (provider plans) and action (get details), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_utility_providers and compare_providers.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use after search_utility_providers has narrowed the list' and gives concrete example user utterances. It also clearly states when not to use: 'Don't use this to discover providers (use search_utility_providers) or to compare across REPs (use compare_providers).'

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