Billing Plans

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Return' wording is consistent with a read-only getter. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond the annotations, such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what the returned configuration actually contains.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the scope efficiently.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter, read-only getter with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It is slightly thin because it does not clarify what 'billing plan configuration' includes or how it maps to the plural tool name 'billing_plans,' but the output schema can cover return-shape details.

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?

All three parameters (baseUrl, profile, frontendUrl) are fully documented in the input schema with their default resolution behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter information, which is acceptable because the schema carries the burden.

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 ('Return') and a clear resource ('Cloudeval billing plan configuration'). The 'configuration' qualifier helps distinguish it from usage/ledger/invoice siblings like billing_usage and billing_invoices, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state whether this returns the current plan or available plans.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need the billing plan configuration. There are no required parameters and no prerequisites to call it. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which of the many billing_* siblings might be more appropriate for related tasks.

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