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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds minimal context ('offered by the gym') but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as filtering behavior, branch relevance, or response format. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words, making it efficient. However, it is arguably under-specified given the two undocumented parameters; it is concise but not fully informative. Still, it earns a 4 for clean structure.

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 and two optional parameters, the description ought to explain what the returned list contains and how the parameters affect results. It only states that plans are listed, which is minimally viable for a simple read-only tool but leaves the parameter semantics and response shape unclear.

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 provides no meaning for the 'account' and 'id_branch' parameters. With no parameter hints, an agent cannot understand how to use these optional fields or which might be required for a given context. This is a significant gap that the description fails to compensate for.

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 is specific with a clear verb ('List') and resource ('membership plans'), and the parenthetical 'planos' clarifies the domain. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like evo_member_list (which lists members) and evo_activity_list (which lists activities).

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 intended use is implied by 'List membership plans offered by the gym' — when you need to retrieve available plans. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like evo_member_list or evo_get_member_count, and no exclusion criteria are given.

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