list_plans

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list and accepts optional filters, and importantly warns the agent not to fabricate data if the tool fails, which is a critical behavioral trait. It could mention pagination or response format but is generally transparent.

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 sentences and 20 words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the critical caveat about not fabricating data. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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 that there is no output schema and 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose and key filters, but could optionally mention the expected return format or default behavior (e.g., whether non-deleted, non-discontinued plans are returned by default). However, the enum defaults are clear from the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the 'borrado' and 'discontinuo' parameters filter for deleted and discontinued plans respectively, which reinforces and clarifies the enum options already documented in the schema. The 'q' parameter for text search is implied by the schema, but the description does not provide additional detail beyond the schema.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'internet plans', and specifies optional filters for deleted or discontinued plans. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on clients, invoices, connections, tickets, and network infrastructure.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_internet_connections or search_clients. However, it includes a warning against fabricating data on failure, which provides operational guidance but not usage context.

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