Get RaivatEdu Pricing

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing provenance (schema.org Offers in the /pricing page JSON-LD), that amounts are numeric rather than pre-formatted, that each market prices in local currency, and that Enterprise is open-ended or sales-quoted. It stops short of saying anything about freshness/caching or failure modes when a market lacks a pricing page.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then source, then args, then return shape, then caveats. It is somewhat longer than needed because the enum list for market and the response_format explanation duplicate schema content that is already at 100% coverage.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description supplies the complete JSON return shape including field names, optionality (minUsers/maxUsers/url) and type expectations (price as number). Combined with the numeric-amount and open-ended-Enterprise notes, an agent has everything needed to call and consume the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the market parameter determines the currency and the plan set ('Each market prices in its local currency'), with a concrete example (India: Starter/Professional/Enterprise in INR). The response_format description largely restates the schema enum, so it is not uniformly additive.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve RaivatEdu's subscription plans and prices for a given market.' This is clearly distinct from the sibling listing tools (list_features, list_solutions, list_resources, get_page_content) — none of them return pricing, so an agent can route here without ambiguity.

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?

It establishes the selection context (price a specific market, with the configured market as the fallback) and explains where the data comes from, which tells the agent this is the authoritative pricing source rather than a generic page fetch. It does not state any when-not conditions or name an alternative for, say, sales-quoted enterprise pricing beyond a brief note.

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