get_pro_upgrade_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no wallet connection is required, but omits whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, and what the returned data looks like, which are important for a tool with no structured 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?

The description is two short fragments with no wasted words, front-loading the key content and the wallet constraint. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter info tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide enough context about what is returned. It names the content areas but does not describe the return format, structure, or level of detail an agent can expect, leaving a modest gap.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema is empty and the description does not need to explain arguments, matching the baseline of 4 for parameter-free tools.

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 specifies the resource contents (payment options and local activation instructions), making clear what information the tool provides. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling activate_pro_license tool, which could cause ambiguity for an agent deciding between retrieving information and performing activation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as activate_pro_license. The only contextual note is a constraint ('No wallet connection'), not usage direction, leaving the agent to infer the call context.

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