rca_admin_show_plan_info

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context by describing the exact return payload and the upgrade_url nuance on Enterprise, and it clarifies that no configuration parameters beyond authentication are needed.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and then gives focused usage guidance and return format. It is slightly verbose in the usage paragraph, but each sentence provides necessary context for correct invocation.

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 read-only plan lookup, the description covers what the tool returns, when to call it, and what parameters are needed. The return shape is explicitly outlined, and the annotations cover safety properties, so nothing essential is missing for correct 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 description says there are no parameters beyond authentication)Skip? It clarifies that no additional configuration is expected, which is helpful. However, it does not add meaningful detail about client_id semantics; the schema already describes token and client_id, so the description provides only marginal added value for parameters.

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 states a clear verb ('Show') and a specific resource: current plan, feature limits, and locked features. It is easily distinguishable from sibling admin tools like rca_admin_health and rca_admin_read_audit_log.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call the tool: proactively before quota-consuming operations such as rca_analysis_batch, rca_model_create, rca_report_compare, and the ai_summary flag. It also explains the benefit—avoiding plan_required errors mid-workflow—making the usage guidance concrete and actionable.

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