Get order plans

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: the product facts are unordered, enum order is not a recommendation, and Firecracker Functions is deliberately out of scope as an orderable type. Return format and pagination are not addressed, keeping this below a 5.

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 opening sentence front-loads purpose and constraint, and the following sentences each carry distinct information rather than filler. It is slightly dense with product specs that partially duplicate the enum descriptions, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers scope, product semantics, and the key exclusion. Minor gap: it does not clarify what a returned 'plan' comprises, so an agent knows how to call it but not exactly what it gets back.

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 the enum already documents all four values, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by warning that enum order carries no ranking and by expanding what each product actually is (KVM/HA/Ceph for vds, microVM for firecracker), which reduces the chance of an agent picking the wrong type by list position.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get available plans') scoped to 'one explicitly selected service product', with concrete product definitions. It is distinguishable from unrelated siblings, though it never names the closest-looking alternatives such as get_order_options or get_plan_options, so the boundary is left implicit.

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?

Gives real selection guidance ('Select from the user's requirements and constraints rather than list position') and excludes a lookalike ('Firecracker Functions is a separate usage-billed product and is not an orderable service type here'). However, it never says when to call this versus the sibling tools get_order_options, get_plan_options, or order_service, so tool-level routing is left to inference.

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