get_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 clearly explains the two modes of operation (list all plans vs. get features for a specific plan) and implies a read-only behavior without stating destructive actions. Additional details on authentication or rate limits are not needed for this simple tool.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully explains both modes of operation and the intended use. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for plan_id. The description adds value by explaining the effect of providing the parameter ('also returns the features for this specific plan'), which goes beyond the schema's description.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available plans') and also clarifies the conditional behavior when a plan is specified. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with other entities.

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 explicitly states the use case ('to understand plan pricing, included features, and credit rates'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but for a simple listing tool this is acceptable.

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