get_org_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns billing info and a portal URL for upgrades, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not specify authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., missing org), or rate limits, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 sentences without redundancy. The first sentence lists the tool's output, and the second provides a next-step action. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (plan name, price, seats, billing date), and what action to take (use billing portal URL). No missing critical information.

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 only parameter (org_id) is fully described in the schema as 'UUID of the organization' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'get the current org plan, seat usage, and billing info' with specific items (plan name, price, seats used/max, next billing date). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which cover billing/plan info.

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 includes a clear usage hint: 'To upgrade: use the billing portal URL returned by this tool.' However, it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. Since sibling tools are distinct, no direct alternatives are mentioned, but the hint provides actionable context.

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