saas_api_get_saas_plan_deprecated

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing an authentication/token requirement (agency-level token), which is not present in the structured data. This is useful for the agent to judge whether it can call the tool. The description doesn't contradict any annotation and reinforces the read-only nature with 'Get'.

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 a single, compact sentence with the primary purpose ('Get SaaS Plan') front-loaded, followed by a key constraint in parentheses. There is no filler or redundant wording. It is well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. However, it omits any reference to its deprecated status or the recommended alternative (saas_api_get_saas_plan), which is a meaningful gap for an agent operating in a large toolset. The token requirement is mentioned, but the deprecation context is missing from the description itself.

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%, with both 'planId' and 'companyId' having descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter-level information (e.g., formats, defaults, or relationships). Since the schema already documents the parameters, the description meets the baseline for high coverage but provides no extra semantic value.

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 'Get SaaS Plan' clearly states a verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'saas_api_get_saas_plan' (the non-deprecated version) beyond the name, so the description alone doesn't clarify which one to use. The token requirement adds specificity but is more of a prerequisite than a differentiator.

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 provides a prerequisite ('requires an agency-level token, not a location PIT') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Notably, it does not mention that this is a deprecated version and that 'saas_api_get_saas_plan' should likely be preferred. An agent is left to infer that the token type determines appropriateness, which is weak guidance for tool selection.

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