plan_search_plans_by_specs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it states that the tool returns matching plans in a requested format and documents the default 'compact' format. It does not discuss side effects, permissions, or edge behavior like how no filters are handled, but 'search' implies a read-only lookup and the return behavior is disclosed.

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 tightly structured: a one-line purpose, a compact Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence carries useful information, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool with five optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the parameters, their units, and the return format. The main gap is the lack of navigation among the many plan_* siblings, but the description itself is complete enough for a straightforward filtered search.

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 descriptions cover 0% of the parameters, but the Args section adds meaningful semantics: units (MB, GB, USD), the meaning of each minimum/maximum, and format options ('compact' or 'json'). It leaves some nuance implicit, such as how multiple filters combine, but it substantially compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with 'Search plans by specifications,' a specific verb and resource that states the tool's core purpose. It clearly indicates this tool filters plans by resource and cost constraints, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like plan_get_plan_by_type_and_spec or plan_compare_plans.

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 parameter list ('min_vcpus', 'min_ram', etc.) implies the tool is for finding plans that meet hardware and budget thresholds. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions, such as preferring plan_list_plans for unfiltered listing or plan_get_cheapest_plan for minimum-cost selection.

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