List Edge Computing plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description's '[READ]' merely repeats readOnlyHint and 'GET /plans' adds only the HTTP endpoint; it does not disclose auth requirements, pagination, rate limits, or any return 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?

The description is brief and technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. The single fragment '[READ] OpenAPI: GET /plans' is front-loaded but contains almost no actionable scope or structure.

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 zero-parameter read-only list endpoint, annotations cover the safety profile, but the description still omits what a plan represents, whether results are paginated, and what categories or fields are returned. No output schema exists to compensate for this gap.

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, so the rubric baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to add, and the description does not misrepresent any parameter behavior.

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 is only '[READ] OpenAPI: GET /plans'. It identifies a read-only GET endpoint, but does not explain what an Edge Computing plan is or distinguish it from siblings such as list_edge_computes, list_edge_routes, or invoke_edge_api. Since the title already states 'List Edge Computing plans', this largely restates the title plus HTTP method.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. Among many list_* and edge-related sibling tools, the description gives an agent no basis for choosing this tool over another.

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