get_boost_pricing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'gets' pricing/features and does not disclose whether it is a safe read-only operation, requires authentication, or has any side effects. It also does not hint at the response format or potential caching/rate limits, leaving the agent without critical safety context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and subject ('pricing and features'), with no redundant words or unnecessary detail. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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 no-parameter tool, the description provides the core purpose but lacks details about the return value or any caveats. Since there is no output schema or annotations, the agent does not know whether the response is a list of plans, a single object, or which specific fields are included. This leaves some ambiguity but is acceptable for a lightweight getter.

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 description does not need to add parameter semantics. The input schema already encodes an empty object, and the description reinforces the tool's purpose without needing to explain any arguments. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 that the tool retrieves pricing and features for boosting/featuring an MCP server, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pricing and features'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like boost_mcp_server (which performs the action) and get_boost_status (which likely returns status).

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 implies the tool is used to fetch pricing information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough.

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