get_plans

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'List' phrasing is consistent. Beyond that, the description adds little behavioral context such as pagination behavior or whether plans are currently active, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the essential purpose immediately and omits filler.

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 simple paginated list tool with annotations and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, the lack of any differentiation from sibling plan-related tools leaves a real ambiguity that an agent must resolve by inspecting other definitions.

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 100%, and both parameters (page, limit) already include meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so it lands at the baseline of 3.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('available plans/packages'), making the tool's purpose understandable at a glance. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools such as get_upgrade_plans or get_renewal_plan, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus any of its many siblings, especially the similarly named get_upgrade_plans and get_renewal_plan. The description implies a general list operation but provides no context or exclusions to help an agent select it confidently.

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