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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it describes the machine-readable output format, the one CWF PLAN line per plan, and the SETTLE line naming asset, network, and address. This is a meaningful enhancement over the structured metadata.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently delivers the purpose, the decision context, and the return format in two sentences. Every sentence adds distinct value: what the tool does, why an agent would use it, and what the result looks like. No wasted words.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the tool's purpose, its role in refusal handling, and the structure of its output. An agent has enough context to call the tool and interpret the result without additional documentation.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so schema description coverage is 100%. There is no parameter burden for the description to carry; the baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters requiring explanation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the plans, what each costs, and what each raises', then names the concrete outputs (call ceiling, row budget, commercial indicator set). This clearly identifies the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_billing_profile or list_fusion_products without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is useful: 'so you can decide what to do about a refusal without parsing a pricing page'. It also mentions related actions (open_payment, escalating to budget holder), but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus a sibling. Clear context is present, though exclusions are absent.

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