adaptorch_plan_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the catalog is 'current' (implying a live read) and summarizes the payload, but does not say whether prices are stable, what currency/billing period applies, or how often the catalog changes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource, followed by the concrete plan data — no filler. Slight risk that hardcoding $0/$39/$149 will silently drift from the actual response, making the specificity a liability rather than an asset.

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, the description carries the full burden of describing the return value; it gives tier names and prices but not the full per-plan shape (limits, seats, billing interval, currency code). Adequate to decide to call it, but not to know what fields to expect when parsing the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; nothing is left for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies the call takes no arguments by describing a fixed catalog rather than a lookup by plan id.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it returns the current hosted cloud plan catalog, and even enumerates the tiers with prices, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't reference siblings, but none of the listed siblings (run/get_run/artifacts/usage/etc.) overlap with pricing, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied — you call it when you need plan names or prices. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no note about whether this reflects live billing state vs. a static marketing list, and no pointer to alternatives such as adaptorch_usage for consumption data.

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