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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description reinforces this by focusing on state inspection and adds no contradicting side effects. A minor gap is not mentioning idempotency, but the read-only nature implies it.

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 three sentences and mostly clear, but the final remark about 'Owned links are unlimited by count' is tangential to the tool's primary purpose and could be omitted for tighter focus.

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?

Provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use this tool versus others, including a direct cross-reference to the sibling tool. Without an output schema, it appropriately avoids promising specific fields.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is complete. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and there is no missing information.

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 states this tool provides account-level state (plan, entitlement, usage allowances) and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on links. The verb 'check' is implicit but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('to check what the account may do or whether it is near a limit') and explicitly directs users to the sibling 'links' tool for link-specific details, providing clear selection criteria.

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