Digikala Plus plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context the annotations cannot: the plan tiers (jet vs fresh) and that results carry Toman pricing and benefits. It does not describe ordering or count, which is a minor omission for a small static list.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the differentiating details in a compact parenthetical. Every clause (tier names, geography, currency, benefits) carries information an agent would otherwise lack; nothing is padding.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive list tool with no output schema, the description already tells the agent what comes back (plan tiers, Toman prices, benefits). Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description neither invents nor misrepresents parameters, and correctly implies the call returns the full plan set with no filtering input.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Digikala Plus plans), then immediately qualifies what those plans contain (jet same-day Tehran/Karaj shipping, fresh supermarket, price in Toman, benefits). No sibling tool in the list covers subscription plans, so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers this is for questions about Plus subscription tiers, but there is no explicit 'use when' clause, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. when to prefer dk_fresh_search or dk_deals instead). Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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