list_voc_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return type ('List of VOC plans'), which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or pagination behavior. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Returns: List of VOC plans') is redundant since an output schema exists. This repetition adds no value, reducing efficiency. However, it's front-loaded with the core 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, output schema provided), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and return value, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, auth) that would be needed without annotations, making it incomplete for full agent understanding.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation without compensation needed.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('VOC (Optimized Cloud) plans'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_plans', 'list_vc2_plans', or 'list_vhf_plans', which reduces clarity about its unique scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to similar sibling tools like 'list_plans' or 'compare_plans', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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