list_installment_plans

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns by using 'List'. The phrase 'currently offered' adds a subtle behavioral nuance (data may change over time), enhancing transparency beyond the annotation.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It states the purpose and the optional filter efficiently, adhering to good structure.

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 simple list operation and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it lists, and the optional filter. It does not need to explain return format or side effects, as those are either obvious or covered by annotations.

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 only parameter 'amount' is described with both its meaning ('Amount to finance') and currency ('quetzales'). This fully covers the parameter's semantic intent, complementing the type information in the schema.

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 the resource ('installment plans'), and specifies an optional filter by amount. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform different actions like search or calculate.

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 mentions the optional filter for amount, giving a clear usage condition. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to use it. Slight deduction for lacking an explicit 'when not to use'.

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