get_installment_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns details like 'status, schedules, etc.,' but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects, parameter usage, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful for the AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has 50% description coverage (only 'plan_id' is described). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. It implies the tool retrieves details for a 'specific installment plan,' which aligns with the 'plan_id' parameter, but does not explain the purpose of the 'address' parameter or provide additional context. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific installment plan.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('installment plan'), and mentions the type of details returned ('status, schedules, etc.'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_installments' or 'get_payment_status,' which slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides implied usage guidance: 'Use this to see the precise fields returned for a plan.' This suggests it's for retrieving detailed information about a specific plan, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_installments' or 'get_payment_status,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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