podyx_list_subscription_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful read behavior (view=offers reflects current public purchasability, authoring scope=private/all needs clients:read, pagination must be followed), but it is dominated by statements that belong to write endpoints — "UUID Idempotency-Key required", "Archive deactivates", "resends preserve the stored deadline" — which mislead about what this call does and conflict in spirit with a read-only list for which no idempotency-key parameter exists.

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 definition is a single dense block copied from a broader endpoint document, with no structure and no separation of read semantics from write semantics. Sentences about archives, resends, grants and payment links consume space without helping an agent call a listing endpoint.

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 parameter-heavy list tool with no output schema and no documented filters, the description should explain the available filters, how the nested collections are paginated, and roughly what comes back. It covers nested pagination and the view/scope distinction, but omits include_inactive and the included_items controls and says nothing about the response, while padding the rest with irrelevant mutation guidance.

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 description coverage is 0% across eleven nested query parameters, and the description does rescue some of them: view=authoring vs offers, scope=private/all requiring clients:read, and the independent options_page/options_per_page and addons_page/addons_per_page bounds on nested collections. It leaves page, per_page, include_inactive, and included_items_page/included_items_per_page entirely unexplained, so the compensation is partial.

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 opening clause pairs a specific verb and resource with the underlying endpoint ("List subscription-plans GET /api/v2/subscription-plans"), so the agent knows this enumerates plans rather than fetching one. It never differentiates from the close siblings podyx_get_subscription_plan or podyx_list_bundle_plan, and the useful clause is buried under unrelated text.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to podyx_get_subscription_plan, podyx_list_bundle_plan, or the quote tools. The only routing-ish hints are parameter-level ("view=offers uses current public purchasability and excludes private plans") and a trailing note that a quote does not reserve a slot, which a reader must assemble into a workflow themselves.

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