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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List pricing plans for a server' but does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as whether it's read-only, authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter, potential side effects, or error conditions. It's minimal and vague.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary words. Perfectly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal but may be sufficient for a straightforward list operation. However, it lacks any mention of output format, pagination, or error handling, which could be relevant. With no annotations, it's incomplete for behavioral expectations but adequate for a simple list.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds 'for a server' which might imply scoping but doesn't go beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters.

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 action (List) and the resource (pricing plans), and scopes it to a server. It is specific enough to define the tool's core purpose, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_plan or update_plan beyond the action verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or why you'd use list_plans over get_server or other listing tools. The description is just a one-liner without context.

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