reach_listPlanFeatureAccessV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what `available` and `locked` mean, clarifies that this is a feature lock matrix rather than a quota, and notes the practical consequence for building features. It could explicitly state that the call is read-only, but the verb 'List' and the matrix semantics make that reasonably clear.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds valuable semantic clarifications, an alternative endpoint, and a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned conceptually, defines the possible statuses, distinguishes the tool from a related endpoint, and gives an actionable scenario. Nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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% and the only parameter is `profileUuid`, which is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning for this parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List which plan features the profile can use.' It clarifies the scope (per profile) and explicitly distinguishes the feature lock matrix from a usage quota, which prevents confusion with the sibling limits endpoint.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('Worth checking before building something that cannot be activated afterwards') and when not to ('For remaining emails, recipients and AI credits use the limits endpoint instead'). This gives clear routing guidance relative to reach_getRemainingPlanLimitsV1.

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