list_upgrade_options

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and notes that the upgrade creates an invoice elsewhere, indicating no side effects. Could add more on auth or errors, but sufficient for a read-only list tool.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states purpose, second adds behavioral note. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, description adequately covers purpose, safety, and usage. Missing details like pagination or return format, but not critical for a list of options.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Service ID from list_services'). Description adds minimal extra context ('from its product group'), which is helpful but not substantial. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states this tool lists plans with billing cycles and prices for upgrade/downgrade. Verb 'list' matches name, resource 'upgrade options' is specific, and it distinguishes from the actual upgrade tool (upgrade_service) by noting it is read-only.

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?

Description provides context: read-only and the actual upgrade is not an MCP tool. It implies usage before performing an upgrade, but does not explicitly mention the sibling upgrade_service. Still, it gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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