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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with a concrete assurance: it never charges or changes the subscription, and payment occurs only in the dashboard. That is genuine added context beyond the annotation flags, though no rate limits or freshness/caching behavior are mentioned.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The content list is front-loaded, and the read-only caveat is placed at the end where it reads as an important qualifier.

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 only one optional parameter, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating what the agent will see. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 'language' parameter is fully documented with its enum and default in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 names a specific resource (the company's plan) and enumerates exactly what is returned: current plan, cycle usage against limits, available plans with prices, and the subscription link. This is clearly distinguishable from all siblings, which are recruitment/candidate 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 scope implies when to reach for it (questions about plan, usage limits, pricing, subscribing), and the closing sentence draws a clear boundary by stating that changes must happen in the dashboard, not here. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling overlaps this domain.

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