ghl_saas_get_agency_plans_deprecated

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds only token requirement and endpoint, which is useful but not rich behavioral context. No additional traits (e.g., rate limits, pagination) are disclosed.

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 somewhat repetitive (two deprecation notices) and includes the title 'Get Agency Plans' redundant with annotations. It could be more concise by merging the deprecation warnings.

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 fetch tool with full annotations and single parameter, the description provides adequate context (deprecation, token, endpoint). However, it lacks any mention of response structure or potential errors, which would improve completeness.

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 100% with a single parameter already described. The description merely restates 'for a given company ID' without adding new semantic details, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 clearly states the tool fetches agency subscription plans for a company ID and explicitly marks it as deprecated with a superseding endpoint. While it distinguishes itself from siblings via deprecation, it does not name the exact replacement tool, leaving minor ambiguity.

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?

Usage guidelines are strong: deprecation warning explicitly tells the agent to prefer the replacement, and the required agency-level token is stated. However, it lacks an explicit 'do not use' directive or direct reference to the non-deprecated sibling tool.

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