list_carrier_service_plans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple list action by disclosing that the tool is not testable against live hardware, hermetic/spec-conformance testing only, and is not query-paginated since the full set is returned under service_plans. This gives the agent important operational context.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then adds relevant behavioral caveats and parameter semantics. Each sentence provides useful information without padding or redundancy.

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 simple list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the resource scope, pagination behavior, testing status, and the key_label parameter's purpose, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates for the only parameter. It explains that key_label is optional and that it is a configured API-key label used to route on a specific key, adding meaning beyond the raw schema type and default.

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 ('Carrier / ISP Fabric service plans') and scopes it to 'the authenticated organization.' This clearly defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_carrier_service_plan, which fetch a single plan.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when you need the full set of service plans for the organization. It also notes that the API is not query-paginated and returns the complete set, which helps with expectations, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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