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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool returns (stored items and daily cost) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, the exact response format, pagination, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a query tool.

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 description is a single, tightly-worded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It communicates the core purpose immediately and is appropriately sized for its simplicity.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of what is returned (stored items and daily cost), but it lacks specifics like the structure of the response, units of cost, or whether the result is a summary or a list. It is minimally viable but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 description mentions 'an account,' which implicitly maps to the required 'owner' parameter, but it does not explicitly state that owner is the account whose storage and cost are being queried. With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter meaning should be stated directly rather than left to inference.

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 clearly identifies the resource (an account's stored content) and the cost dimension (daily cost), which distinguishes it from the sibling memory_prices that likely provides a general price list. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a verb (e.g., 'Get the storage and daily cost'), which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_prices or search_memory. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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