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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shape of the response (usage metrics plus over-limit status), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, whether a missing tenant_id silently defaults to the caller's tenant, or rate/authorization limits.

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, zero filler, with the core capability and its monitoring purpose front-loaded. Every clause earns 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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields, so an agent knows what it gets back. It stops short of stating the read-only/safety profile, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional tenant_id is fully documented in the schema, including the auth-context fallback. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (storage usage details for a tenant) and enumerates the returned fields (bytes used, GB used, storage limit, percentage used, over-limit status). No sibling tool touches storage, so the agent can immediately distinguish it from the Get*/List* asset and prompt tools.

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 second sentence ('Helps monitor storage consumption and enforce storage quotas') implies the usage context but never states when to prefer this tool, what prerequisites exist, or any alternative. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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