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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing states that the call is non-mutating, what happens for an unknown planId, or that the chain parameter defaults to bsc. It also omits any note about response shape beyond four field names.

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 short sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the returned fields without filler. It is tight, though arguably too terse given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 description does cover the return fields, which matters since there is no output schema, but it leaves out chain-specific behavior, error cases, and sibling differentiation. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so both parameters and the chain enum with its default are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that for parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ('Get plan details') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what data it retrieves. It does not distinguish this from similarly named siblings such as actora_subscription_detail, leaving ambiguity about which tool surfaces plan metadata versus live subscription state.

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 call this rather than actora_subscription_detail, actora_subscription_check, or actora_subscription_fee. Nothing tells the agent that this is the lookup to use before creating or subscribing to a plan, nor any prerequisite about knowing a valid planId.

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