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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: prices come in two currencies (USD and Telegram Stars) and are lower in many countries, which shapes how results should be interpreted. It stops short of describing return shape, since no output schema exists.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then the return contents and currency nuance. No filler, though the plural noun phrase makes it slightly list-like rather than immediately readable.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what plans exist, what data accompanies them, the currencies, and the country-dependent pricing caveat. Remaining gaps (exact field names/format of returned links and features) are minor.

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 (country with examples, language enum with default en) are already fully documented. The description only reinforces the country scoping ('for the given country') and says nothing about the language parameter, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 the concrete resource (GramForge plans: Free, Starter, Pro, Studio) and exactly what is returned (features and monthly prices in USD and Telegram Stars, scoped by country). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_faq, get_overview, and match_business, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to route against.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for price/plan questions, but there is no explicit 'use when...' trigger, no exclusions, and no pointer to sibling tools such as get_overview for general product questions.

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