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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of what comes back (name, summary, options, position, prepaid flag) and the underlying endpoint GET /shops/selling-plan-groups, which helps the agent reason about scope; it stops short of mentioning pagination or result size limits.

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, both front-loaded: the resource and its fields first, the follow-up routing second, and the endpoint path as a trailing anchor. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 burden of describing the result, which it does by enumerating the returned fields. It is nearly complete; the only missing piece is any indication of whether the list is paginated or bounded.

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 the baseline is 4 — there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly says nothing about inputs and instead spends its words on scope and return fields.

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+resource ('The shop's selling plan groups (subscription plans)') and immediately enumerates the fields returned. The parenthetical clarifies the domain term, so an agent can distinguish it from awtomic_get_selling_plan_group without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use the ids with awtomic_get_selling_plan_group', establishing the list→get workflow and naming the sibling alternative. It doesn't state a when-not-to-use condition, but for a no-parameter list tool the flow guidance is the relevant kind.

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