pulse_my_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (show), explains what data it returns (tier, rate limits, tier comparison, upgrade link), and notes that live quota info is also available via headers. This is thorough, but a minor gap exists: it doesn't specify whether the tool is destructive or has side effects, but the explicit 'show' verb makes that clear.

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 three sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose, then usage guidelines, then extra context. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional boolean parameter, no output schema needed), the description is fully complete. It explains purpose, when to use, what data is returned, and related header information. There are no gaps for an agent to make mistakes.

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% and there is only one boolean parameter with a default. The description adds value by explaining the overall output (compact toon format vs. standard JSON) and the context of the tool, which goes beyond the schema. A score of 4 reflects that the description enhances understanding of the param's effect.

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 tool shows the current API key's plan, including tier, rate limits, and a comparison of every tier with an upgrade link. This is specific and explicit about the resource (plan) and verbs (show, call). It differentiates from siblings like pulse_global_stats or market statistics.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: when the user asks about their plan, when a request was rejected due to tier or rate-limit reasons, or before recommending an upgrade. It also mentions live remaining-quota headers as an alternative source, providing clear guidance on context.

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