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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only mild scoping context ('for the connected account') and an invocation constraint; it discloses nothing about auth, data freshness, or quota-window semantics 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the return payload stated first and the usage restriction second. Nothing repeats the annotations or the empty schema.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure, and zero params and full annotation coverage keep the burden low. What is missing is only the boundary between 'usage limits' here and the usage-statistics siblings, which an agent could still trip over.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and no schema gap to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the account is inferred from context rather than supplied as input.

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?

A specific verb and resource ('Returns team name, plan label, and usage limits') with the target scoped to 'the connected account', so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clear on its own but never names or distinguishes itself from near-neighbors like get_team_usage or get_api_usage_stats, leaving overlap ambiguity.

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?

Explicit positive trigger ('when the user explicitly asks about their team, plan, or usage quotas') plus an exclusion-by-implication ('Use only when...'), which limits spurious proactive calls. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use when the user asks about usage stats rather than limits, which would have earned a 5.

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