panelica_plans_get_v1_plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and the HTTP GET method. It adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the required OAuth scope (plans:read), which helps an agent know whether it can call the tool at all.

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 compact and front-loaded: 'List plans' appears first, followed by concise metadata lines for HTTP method, category, required scopes, and read-only behavior. Every line adds useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description covers the essential invocation details: endpoint, category, scopes, and safety profile. It does not describe the response shape or paging, but in the absence of an output schema 'List plans' by itself reasonably implies a list of plan objects is returned.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps, and it provides no misleading parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List plans') and documents the HTTP endpoint, making the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_v1_plans_id endpoint, though the collection-vs-single distinction is fairly implied by the name and path.

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 usage by naming the action and required plan:read scope, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings like get_v1_plans_id, post_v1_plans, or patch_v1_plans_id. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, so the agent has to infer the intended use case.

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