recommend_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the tool considers subscription vs API cost and token caps, which is useful. However, it does not disclose output format, edge cases (e.g., no plan fits, budget exclusions), or any side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. The second sentence explains the decision logic without unnecessary detail. Ideal conciseness.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no output schema, the description does not clarify what the returned recommendation looks like (e.g., plan ID, estimated cost). It also does not reference sibling tools, leaving the decision context incomplete for an agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema, so it neither adds nor detracts from the schema's thorough documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('best-value plan recommendation'), clearly stating it returns a single recommendation based on usage profile. It distinguishes from siblings like compare_plans by emphasizing 'single' and 'best-value'.

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 context is implied: when you want a single recommendation for a usage profile. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use compare_plans) or state exclusions, so no when-not guidance is provided.

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