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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Live' hints at real-time, non-cached reads, but the description says nothing about permissions, latency, whether the call is side-effect free, or which rail values are valid.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the resource (plans and prices) is front-loaded. It is a noun fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly reduces readability but wastes nothing.

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 or annotations, the description partially compensates by describing the returned content (plans, prices, rail breakdown, active promotion). It still leaves 'rail' undefined and does not say what happens when no promotion is active, which an agent needs to interpret results.

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 single parameter productId is undocumented anywhere. The description refers to 'a product' but never explains the identifier's format or origin, so it adds no real meaning beyond the schema key name.

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 names a clear resource and payload — plans, prices, per rail, plus the active promotion for a given product — so an agent knows this returns pricing data rather than performing a transaction. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the nearest sibling, wavepay_catalog, which likely also exposes plan information.

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 versus wavepay_catalog or wavepay_checkout, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that this is the pricing lookup path and the others are not.

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