ghl_saas_get_agency_plans_deprecated

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely additive context: the agency-level token requirement, the legacy Version header (2021-04-15), and the removal risk plus the date the docs were checked. It does not cover rate limits or response shape, but for a read-only endpoint that is minor.

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 deprecation warning is stated three separate times across the header and two bracketed blocks, and the endpoint/version/token facts are repeated near the bottom. The lead does front-load the deprecation, but roughly half the text is duplicated rather than earning 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?

For a one-parameter read with no output schema, the description supplies endpoint, auth scope, version header, deprecation status, and what is returned (agency subscription plans). An agent has enough to decide and call correctly; only the replacement tool name is missing.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Company ID to get agency plans for'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only restates 'for a given company ID' without adding format, source, or lookup guidance, which is the baseline case.

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 concrete verb and resource — 'Fetch all agency subscription plans for a given company ID' — plus the underlying endpoint GET /saas-api/public-api/agency-plans/{companyId}. It distinguishes itself from the non-deprecated sibling only by pointing to a replacement HTTP path rather than the sibling tool name (ghl_saas_get_agency_plans is present in the sibling list).

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?

Explicitly sets the usage condition (agency/Company-level token required) and an exclusion ('LEGACY FALLBACK... prefer a current equivalent', 'Expect removal'). The one gap is that the recommended alternative is given as an endpoint path, not a callable tool name, so the agent must infer which sibling to switch to.

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