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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: unauthenticated callers get a 401 and are pushed into the OAuth flow, and it outlines what data the call surfaces. It stops short of noting rate limits or caching nuance.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the payload is front-loaded, and the auth precondition follows as a distinct actionable clause. Every phrase carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them; annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers the auth requirement. For a zero-parameter read tool, nothing material 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty by design and no parameter-level explanation is required.

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 names a concrete resource and enumerates exactly what is returned: the signed-in account's plan, daily audit allowance plus 24-hour consumption, and owned Atlas tool count. That level of detail makes it unmistakable against siblings like check_identity, my_reports, or atlas_owner_stats even though none are named.

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 is implied (inspect your own plan/quota) and one precondition is stated: a signed-in inite.ai account is required. However, it never says when to prefer this over adjacent identity/account tools such as check_identity or atlas_owner_stats, and gives no exclusions.

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