ClockNext: list plans

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful context: 'only sellable plans' implies business logic for the active filter, and listing the output fields (id, name, billing cycle, price, active) is valuable given there is no output schema. It aligns with annotations and adds behavioral nuance.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second gives use cases, and the third adds a filter hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description fully covers the purpose, output fields, and an important filter behavior. Combined with the annotations and schema, it is complete and unambiguous.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'active' parameter, so this is the baseline. The description adds the business term 'sellable' but otherwise doesn't introduce syntax or semantics beyond what the schema describes.

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 states the action ('List') and resource ('organisation's billing plans'), enumerates the returned fields, and specifies a concrete use case ('find a plan id or see what's on offer'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_plan, which retrieves a single plan.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'find a plan id or see what's on offer' and gives a conditional modifier ('Pass active=true for only sellable plans'). However, it does not reference alternatives such as get_plan for single-plan lookups or state explicit exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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