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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-content context (last reset times, frequency, recent resets with links to announcements), but says nothing about data freshness, caching, or coverage limits — relevant since the value depends on recency.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the subject (what was last reset, for which products) is front-loaded. The parallel structure ('When ... how often ... recent resets') is slightly awkward but efficient.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent gets back. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could note the freshness or window of the reset data.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter itself is documented as optional with 'claude-code or codex (default both)'. The description only implicitly confirms both products are covered, adding no syntax or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a distinct resource — usage-limit reset history for Claude Code and Codex — with concrete scope (last reset, frequency, recent resets with announcement links). It is identifiable against siblings like model_prices or real_world_usage, though it is phrased as a sentence fragment rather than an explicit verb+resource 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as check_status or real_world_usage. The agent must infer the use case from the description alone.

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