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

The phrase 'Static markdown' is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it tells the agent the result is a fixed, pre-authored document rather than live or computed data. The description is consistent with the annotations and adds useful context.

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?

The description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the plan names and prices, then summarizes the content and the static nature. There is no filler, repetition of the title, or unnecessary detail.

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 static reference tool with no parameters, this description is complete: it names the plans, states the scope of the content, and signals the markdown format. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters and the parameter schema is already complete, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 clearly identifies the resource as TradeBasis subscription tiers and enumerates the key content: Lite vs Pro, including prices, inclusions, and target audience. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools by topic, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'describes'.

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?

The description implies this tool is for pricing/plan questions and states what content the markdown contains, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like tradebasis_about or tradebasis_research_library. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.

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