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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate read-only behavior. It adds valuable context by explaining that the tool exposes plan limits, remaining capacity per feature, and reusable unassigned resources, which goes beyond the annotation and makes the tool's purpose and output scope transparent.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the most important instruction ('Call this FIRST') and packs only high-value information: what is returned and how to use it. Every clause earns its place, and the parenthetical list of features is compact but meaningful.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: plan, usage, limits, the features matrix, and unassigned leftovers. It gives the agent everything needed to know when and why to call this tool and what to expect back.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. The description correctly implies the tool takes no arguments and returns a full account overview, matching the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Call this FIRST'), names the resource (the account), and lists exactly what it returns: plan, usage, limits, features matrix, and unassigned leftovers. It clearly distinguishes this account-level overview from the many project/resource-specific siblings like get_project and get_form.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST on every build' and instructs the agent to 'design only within it.' It also provides a concrete decision rule — reuse unassigned leftovers before creating new ones — which contrasts with sibling creation tools like create_form and create_data_collection.

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