arvan_list_plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly non-destructive. The description adds the pricing aspect, which enriches the expected output, but does not disclose other behaviors like regional filtering or permission requirements. Given annotations, a 3 is appropriate: adds some value but not deep transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, providing essential information without excess.

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 simple schema (one optional param, no output schema) and annotations providing safety info, the description is fairly complete. It mentions pricing, which adds value. However, it could better describe the return format or region parameter, but for a list tool, it suffices. Score 4.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It fails to mention the 'region' parameter, leaving its purpose and effect undocumented. The description only covers the action and result, not the input. This is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 'available server plans/flavors (sizes) and their pricing', which distinctively identifies the tool's function. It differentiates from sibling list tools like 'arvan_list_servers' by specifying the object (plans) and adding pricing detail.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion cases. The usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose (listing plans before creating a server). A score of 3 reflects adequate but not explicit guidance.

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