List Pricing Plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the school-scoping constraint; it says nothing about ordering, completeness, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema documents.

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 short sentence with no waste and the scope constraint front-loaded. It is efficient, though minimal — nothing is reinforced or clarified beyond the bare statement.

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 trivial, fully-parameterized read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin. With no output schema, one line about what a pricing plan record contains or how results are ordered would meaningfully improve it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so 'per', 'page' and 'account' are all documented in the schema itself, including the default max of 5 per page and the caution that 'account' is a label rather than an auth proof. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (fetch/list) and resource (pricing plans) and narrows scope to 'your school'. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_pricing_plan, leaving the list-vs-single distinction to be inferred from the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when get_pricing_plan is the better choice, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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