List DCA Plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds return structure and filtering but does not disclose pagination behavior or ordering. Given strong annotations, description adds moderate value.

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 well-structured sentences. The first states the primary function and return fields; the second explains filters. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

The description covers purpose, return fields, and filters. Pagination details are in the schema, so not needed in description. For a simple list tool without output schema, this is nearly complete; missing default sort order is minor.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description repeats the filter parameters and adds 'Omit to return all' context, which is helpful but not essential. Page/limit not mentioned in description, but schema handles them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists DCA recurring investment plans, specifies the return fields (plan_id, symbol, amount, etc.), and mentions filters. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling DCA tools like create or history.

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 explains filtering by status and symbol with examples. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, but the context is clear. A minor improvement would be referencing dca_history for history, but currently adequate.

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