Get plan options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: that plan changes carry no cost and that an API-key call requires the services:read scope, which is actionable auth information an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the cost and auth notes. Every sentence conveys distinct, useful information.

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 read-only lookup with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and auth scope adequately. It could have noted what the options contain (plan names/prices) to help the agent route correctly, but no essential calling information is missing.

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%: orderNo is fully documented with pattern, length bounds, and examples (VP12345, VP12345-1). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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') and scopes it to upgrade/downgrade, which separates it from calculate_plan_change and change_plan. It does not explicitly name those siblings or clarify the ordering vs get_plan_resources / get_order_plans, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'for upgrade/downgrade' frames the context of use, and 'Plan changes are FREE' signals this is a no-cost exploration step. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and never names the natural companions (calculate_plan_change to preview cost, change_plan to execute), leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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