ghl_saas_get_agency_plans

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real context beyond them: the agency-level token requirement and the specific OAuth scope 'saas/company.read', which determine whether the call can succeed at all.

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?

Front-loading the auth requirement is good, but the agency-token requirement is stated twice in near-identical wording ('REQUIRES AN AGENCY-LEVEL (Company) TOKEN' and 'Requires an Agency (company-level) token'), and the endpoint/source metadata is verbose relative to the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers auth, scope, endpoint and version — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is relational: it never explains how the result differs from the deprecated variant or from ghl_saas_get_plan.

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 0% and the single parameter is an undescribed string. The description partially compensates by clarifying that companyId identifies the company/agency whose plans are fetched, but it gives no format or sourcing hint (where the companyId comes from).

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 and resource: 'Fetch all agency subscription plans for a given company ID', with the underlying endpoint spelled out. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as ghl_saas_get_agency_plans_deprecated or ghl_saas_get_plan, which an agent would likely weigh against it.

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 repeated 'Agency-level (Company) token' requirement implies the calling context (agency/company scope, not location scope), which is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of the deprecated variant or ghl_saas_get_plan as alternatives.

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