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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it warns that price-shaped fields are retired plans that must never be quoted, that org caps are not the human's plan or trial, that caps are live and enforced, and it prescribes how to describe plans (price/agents/storage; allowances, resets, percentages) instead of token counts or usage multiples. That is unusually rich behavioral framing; the gap is that it never characterizes the shape or freshness of the response beyond naming a few fields, which matters for a tool with no output schema.

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?

The critical point (the access date) is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is a dense 'plus… plus… plus' chain with nested parentheticals that is hard to scan. It also restates the org-caps-are-not-the-plan distinction and revisits the retired-price warning, so some sentences do not fully earn their 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description must supply both content and caution, and it does: it names the key response fields, explains what each set of numbers means, and blocks the main misuse (quoting stale prices or token counts). It stops short of a 5 because an agent still lacks a clear picture of the response structure and how usage is expressed numerically.

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 per the baseline rule this sits at 4. There is nothing parameter-level for the description to add or omit.

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 enumerates concretely what the tool returns: the human's access/trial end date, org resource caps and usage (agents, members, workspaces, rows, API calls, webhooks, message bundle), card-on-file and next invoice date. It also explicitly disclaims pricing ('This tool does NOT price anything'), which separates it from the sibling plan-mutation tools. It falls short of a 5 because the enumeration is delivered as a run-on chain rather than a crisp 'returns X, Y, Z' statement.

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 conditional guidance tied to the data ('the ONLY date to quote for that'; 'These caps are live and enforced — use them') and routes price questions away from this tool by naming `currentPlans.tiers` as the authoritative source. However, it never states a trigger for calling it (e.g., 'call when the user asks about limits or their trial'), nor does it name a sibling to use for adjacent questions like capabilities or workspace state.

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