List DCA Plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating it lists plans. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal extra 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?

The description is a single sentence with two clauses, front-loading the main action and then adding filter details. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the schema fully documents parameters and annotations provide safety information, the description is adequate for a simple listing tool. It could mention pagination behavior (page/limit defaults) but those are in the schema, so it's not a critical gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already described. The description merely echoes the filter options from the schema without adding new meaning or constraints beyond what is already present in the structured data.

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 'List DCA recurring investment plans' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions filtering by status or symbol, which differentiates it from sibling DCA tools like dca_create, dca_history, etc., that perform other actions.

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 indicates when to use filters (by status or symbol), which provides some guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dca_history or dca_stats, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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