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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context -- that results include a setup link and a plans link, and that workspace measurement state can be 'own tracking', 'market snapshot', or 'nothing yet' -- but says nothing about response shape, size, or freshness beyond that.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then when to use, then a concrete example -- a sensible order with no filler. The example question partially restates the 'what's included' phrase already used as a trigger, which is mild redundancy but also aids matching.

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 parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description carries the remaining burden well by enumerating the categories of information returned and the links included. An agent knows what it will get and when to call it; only the exact response structure is left unstated, and that is acceptable given the simplicity.

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 no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misdescribes inputs.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: describes what the connected organization's plan includes (workspaces, tracked questions, AI models, run frequency) and the per-workspace measurement mode. That is far more specific than the title 'Account and plan' and clearly separates it from metric-returning siblings like get_visibility_score or list_workspaces, though it never names an alternative tool directly.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions with quoted user phrases ('what's included', 'can you track this weekly', 'how do I add my own questions') plus a sample question, which is strong positive guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for per-metric questions, so the routing is one-directional.

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