ghl_saas_get_agency_plans

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating the security requirement ('REQUIRES AN AGENCY-LEVEL (Company) TOKEN') and clearly describing the action as fetching plans. No contradiction with annotations.

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 reasonably concise, with a front-loaded security note that is important for correct usage. It contains no redundant sentences, but the inclusion of the full endpoint URL may be unnecessary for an AI agent and could be considered slightly verbose.

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 complexity (many sibling tools, 100+ tools) and the absence of an output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not explain what agency subscription plans are, what the return format looks like, or how the result can be used. The security note and endpoint info are helpful but could be expanded with more behavioral context.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'companyId' (string) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating 'for a given company ID', confirming the parameter's role. However, it does not provide additional details like format, constraints, or examples, which would have been beneficial given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Fetch all agency subscription plans for a given company ID', using a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('agency subscription plans'). It clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'ghl_saas_get_plan' or 'ghl_saas_get_location_subscription', which would have been helpful for disambiguation.

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 provides a key usage prerequisite: it requires an agency-level token. It also gives the endpoint and version. However, it does not guide on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'get_agency_plans' vs 'get_plan'). No explicit when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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