getPlans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and 'Returns' conveys a read operation with no side effects. It does not disclose pagination, default behavior of include_accounts, or what 'summary information' includes. This is basic transparency but with meaningful gaps.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core result ('Returns plans list') is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a simple read endpoint, though it lacks any structural detail like examples or parameter mention. Fine for conciseness, but not exceptional.

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 one-optional-parameter read endpoint with an output schema, the description gives the essential purpose but leaves 'summary information' undefined and omits how include_accounts changes the result. It also doesn't connect to sibling tools for full-detail lookups. Slightly under-complete for an agent selecting among many plan-related tools.

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 fully describes include_accounts, so the 100% schema coverage establishes a baseline of 3. The description does not mention the parameter or clarify its effect on the returned summary, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. Score remains at baseline.

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 ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('plans list'), and the word 'list' differentiates it from getPlanById and getPlanSettingsById. However, 'summary information' is vague and doesn't specify what fields are summarized, so it stops 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; there is no mention of getPlanById for single-plan detail or getPlanSettingsById for settings. The only signal is the plural 'plans list,' which weakly implies this is the collection-level endpoint. This is implied usage at best.

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