rca_admin_show_plan_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the return content (plan details, limits, upgrades, upgrade URL), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 brief with two sentences and a returns block, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slight improvement could be made by integrating the returns information more concisely.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the plan name, limits, and upgrades. It does not mention permissions or errors, but for a read-only admin tool, this is acceptable.

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 input schema has two parameters (token and client_id) with 0% description coverage. The description provides no explanation of these parameters, leaving the agent to guess their meaning or purpose.

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 shows the current plan name, feature limits, and upgrade options. It specifies the verb 'Show' and the resource 'plan info', and it distinguishes itself from sibling admin tools like health or audit log by focusing on plan details.

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 notes it is 'useful for understanding what features are available on your current plan,' implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, leaving the guidance somewhat implicit.

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