list_plans

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and 'No key needed' adds genuinely useful auth context not present in annotations. However, nothing is said about whether this returns the full catalog at once, whether results are filtered by the single parameter, or anything about the shape of the response.

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?

It is compact, but the semicolon-delimited content inventory is hard to parse and is not front-loaded with a clear statement of what the tool does. The 'No key needed' note is buried at the end rather than leading with purpose.

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?

With no output schema and one optional parameter, the description should at minimum explain what is returned and how 'kind' narrows results. It conveys the catalog's breadth but leaves the caller guessing about return structure and filtering behavior.

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 'kind' parameter (shared, root, pg) is already documented in the schema. The description never mentions the filter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema—baseline 3 applies.

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 frames the tool as a catalog lookup ('What can be ordered') and enumerates the resources it exposes—plans with price/vCPU/RAM/disk, regions, images, installs, and plan-region availability. This usefully expands on the name 'list_plans', which alone would suggest plans only, but it never states the action as a clear verb and reads as a content inventory rather than a definition.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as get_billing, create_server, or get_order, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only usage-adjacent cue is 'No key needed', which addresses authentication, not selection between tools.

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