check_feature_availability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only check operation, which is safe, but doesn't add context such as whether it requires specific permissions beyond the API key, potential rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of features, status). This leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format, making it minimally viable but not fully complete for informed agent use.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial with no properties). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't have to compensate for any gaps.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('premium features'), and specifies the context ('with your current Instantly plan and API key permissions'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_account_details', but the focus on feature availability is distinct enough for a 4.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when it's appropriate (e.g., before using premium features) or when not to use it, and doesn't reference sibling tools like 'get_account_details' that might overlap in providing account information.

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