Usage And Billing MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('Get plans of a product') without any details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the return format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 phrase ('Get plans of a product'), which is concise but under-specified. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide essential context that would help an AI agent use the tool effectively, making it more of an under-description than true conciseness.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'plans' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with zero structured data support, the description should provide more context to be useful, but it only offers a minimal statement of purpose.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since none are required. However, it does not clarify if parameters are implicitly handled (e.g., via context or defaults), so it slightly misses full compensation for the lack of schema details.

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 plans of a product' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_plans_of_a_product'. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'plans of a product', but does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_product' or 'get_product_items', nor does it clarify what 'plans' means in this context (e.g., pricing plans, subscription plans).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for retrieving product-related data (e.g., 'get_product', 'get_product_items', 'get_products'), but the description offers no context on when this specific tool is appropriate, such as for fetching associated plans versus general product details.

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