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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, but the description adds value beyond annotations: it names the backing endpoint (POST /v1/plans.list) and, with no output schema available, discloses the return envelope '{ list }'. It stops short of stating default filtering (archived/versions excluded?) or pagination behavior.

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?

Three short, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the purpose statement comes first. The endpoint clause is implementation detail of marginal selection value, but it costs very few tokens.

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 simple read-only list tool the definition is nearly sufficient, and the return envelope compensates for the missing output schema. However, it omits default behavior when no parameters are supplied (are archived plans and old versions included by default?) and says nothing about pagination, which an agent needs to reason about for a 'list all' tool.

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 all four optional parameters (entity_id, customer_id, all_versions, include_archived) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics for them, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all plans (products) in the current environment'), and the parenthetical 'products' resolves the domain ambiguity of 'plans'. It contrasts implicitly with the singular sibling autumn_get_plan, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied by the verb 'list' and the phrase 'all plans'. There is no statement of when to prefer this over autumn_get_plan, autumn_list_features, or when the entity_id/customer_id scoping variants are appropriate.

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