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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails to carry it. It does not state that this is a read-only reference query, whether it has side effects, costs anything to call, or what the response format will be. For an unannotated tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter reference tool, though it trades completeness for brevity.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the gist—costs and limits for memory and files—but stops short of stating what the returned data looks like, whether limits are per-space or global, or whether prices are dynamic. It is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 noun-phrase description 'What memory and files cost, and the limits' clearly identifies the resource (memory, files) and the content (pricing and limits). It is semantically distinguishable from the sibling memory_usage ('usage' vs 'prices'), though it does not explicitly name that sibling. The absence of a verb like 'get' or 'list' costs it the top score.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the closely related siblings memory_usage, write_memory, or store_file. There is no context indicating whether to reach for this before writing memory or checking usage, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The agent must infer when pricing/limits info is relevant.

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