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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: checks normally cost one credit, plans cap check frequencies, and creates can be refused when limits are hit. Return format is not described, but the enumerated fields largely serve that role.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by when to use it. The field enumeration is long but each item constrains a real decision (slots, credits, allowed frequencies). Minor cost: a dense colon-list rather than scannable phrasing.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the whole burden of describing the response, and it enumerates the returned fields in enough detail that an agent knows what it can learn. It also explains the downstream consequence (refused creates) that motivates calling it.

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 the baseline applies; there is nothing parameter-level to explain. The description correctly implies a parameterless, identity-scoped call ('who is connected'), which matches the empty schema.

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 specific resource and enumerates exactly what is returned: plan name, credit refresh date, active monitors used and slots left per workspace, check credits left, and allowed check frequencies. This is clearly distinct from siblings such as list_workspaces or get_editor_capabilities, which cover different resources.

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?

It gives concrete triggering conditions: call before create_monitor or before changing a frequency, and to explain a refused create. That ties usage directly to sibling tools. It stops short of stating when not to call it or naming an alternative source for plan data, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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