Noto CRM Pricing — FREE €0, PRO €19/month, BUSINESS €49/month

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating what the tool returns ('plan comparison table, feature limits per plan, annual billing discounts, FAQ'), giving the agent a clear idea of the response contents without contradicting annotations.

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 somewhat long but efficiently structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then lists plan details, then returns summary, then trigger phrases. The extensive list of example queries is repetitive but serves a clear routing purpose. Every section earns its place, though it could be tightened slightly without loss.

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 tool has only two parameters, both well-documented, and no output schema. The description adequately describes the return content (plan comparison, feature limits, discounts, FAQ) and provides usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it lacks formal structure details for the return, which is not critical here.

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% for both parameters (lang and response_format), each having a clear description and enum values. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 'Get complete pricing details for Noto CRM plans' with the verb 'get' and resource 'pricing details,' and enumerates specific plans. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like noto_get_features and noto_get_overview by focusing solely on pricing, including plan names and prices in the title and body.

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 provides explicit trigger phrases and contexts ('Use when someone asks: ...' followed by a list of specific queries) and notes broader relevance ('Also relevant for: ...'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the clear query examples effectively communicate when this tool is appropriate.

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