List Micro plans

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

Annotations already communicate that the tool is read-only, idempotent, safe, and open-world. The description adds useful context by noting the catalog is public and the usage allowances are current, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination or data freshness beyond those hints.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and clearly states what is returned. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with a rich output schema and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It states the scope (public catalog) and the nature of the data (current usage allowances), so an agent can select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully self-explanatory. The description does not need to describe parameters; the baseline for a parameter-less tool is appropriately high.

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 ('List') and names a concrete resource ('the public Micro plan catalog and current usage allowances'), making the tool's function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like micro_usage, which may overlap with the 'current usage allowances' aspect.

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 purpose statement implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs plan catalog details or usage allowance information. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, such as micro_usage or micro_billing.

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