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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds real value beyond that: the cost model (free) and the fact that the call still consumes rate-limit budget — a non-obvious side effect. It stops short of covering auth requirements or what happens when no account is connected.

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 short sentences with no filler; the capability comes first and the cost caveat follows. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool with annotations covering the safety profile and the description naming the exact fields returned, nothing material is missing. The absence of an output schema is offset by the explicit field list in the description.

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 enumerated return fields are a bonus, not a parameter concern.

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?

Specific verb-plus-resource ("Show the connected Qovia account") with the returned fields enumerated (credit, plan, rate limit), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It doesn't mention the sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough (account vs. endpoints) that confusion is unlikely.

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?

"Free; counts toward the rate limit" hints that this is a cheap status check worth calling before heavier work, but the description never states when to use it or which sibling to prefer for endpoint data. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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