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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating 'Needs no LinkJolt account' — an auth prerequisite the agent cannot infer from annotations, and one that matters for a connector otherwise operating inside an authenticated account.

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?

Two sentences: the first enumerates the payload, the second the trigger condition. Front-loaded with the resource, zero filler, and no restatement of the title or annotations.

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 no parameters, the description carries the full burden of describing results, and it does so concretely — prices, per-plan tracked-sales limits, per-plan connector capabilities, and free-trial behavior. An agent knows exactly what it will get and whether to call it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste words on inputs and instead spends them on return content.

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?

States a specific resource (LinkJolt plans and prices) plus the exact contents returned: monthly tracked-sales limits, per-plan connector capabilities, and free-trial mechanics. No sibling tool deals with pricing, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from the campaign/affiliate/stat operations in the sibling list.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when someone asks what LinkJolt costs or which plan they need.' That is a clear usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not conditions, though for a zero-parameter pricing lookup there are effectively none.

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