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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that omitting place_slug returns different results and describes the return fields (name, description, price, billing cycle, perks, checkout URL). However, it could mention that the operation is read-only and has no side effects, and it does not state any authorization requirements or rate limits. The disclosure is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the primary purpose and the key parameter; the second explains the alternative. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no required fields, no enums, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and usage aspects thoroughly. It explains the two contexts, what is returned, and how to get the venue slug (from search_places). No additional information is needed for an agent to use this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter with a description). The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the practical implications of providing or omitting place_slug, including a strong recommendation and the consequence of each choice. This helps the agent decide correctly.

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 lists membership or subscription plans using a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('membership or subscription plans (Wix Pricing Plans)'), and distinguishes between two cases: venue-specific plans (with place_slug) and directory site's own plans (without). This differentiates it from sibling tools that handle bookings, events, products, etc.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use each parameter: 'Pass place_slug (from search_places) to list the plans of a specific VENUE' and 'Omitting place_slug lists the directory site's own plans instead, which most sites do not have.' This provides clear context and a strong recommendation ('that is what you want in almost every case'). No exclusive alternatives are named, but the guidance is sufficient.

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