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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful domain context about the allowance contents and expiry, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or output behavior 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core resource concept, though it could more directly state the tool's action.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the allowance contains, yet without an output schema it does not clarify what the tool actually returns or how the result should be interpreted.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single agent_pass parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its distinction from User-Agent. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 name and description indicate the tool concerns an evaluation quota or allowance, and it specifies the allowance composition (one premium, 100 basic documents, expiry date). However, it lacks a clear action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'check' and does not distinguish itself from siblings like evaluation_basic or evaluation_premium.

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?

The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. Usage is only faintly implied by the allowance details.

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