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

Annotations already establish readOnly and idempotent, so the description wisely focuses on what annotations cannot express: secrets are never returned (TypeSafe key, Twilio Auth Token), plan-capped fields return plan_limit, and error/limit behavior per plan tier. That is genuine added context; the remaining plan pricing detail is domain lore rather than behavior.

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?

Front-loaded correctly with purpose and exclusions, but the middle is a wall of plan-tier minutiae ($199/year, $99/year packs, 730-day retention, branding mode values) that an agent only needs occasionally. Several sentences could be condensed without losing call-correctness.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating return fields down to nested paths (ai.typesafe_key_set, sms.configured) plus authentication constraints. What's missing is a sense of response shape/structure and whether usage figures are cumulative or period-bounded.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already covers it at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above-baseline by explaining the conditional requirement of team_id — mandatory for operator tokens/OAuth, optional for team-scoped frw_ tokens, and never usable to target another workspace.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Use to read the team's plan, usage this month, limits...') and enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It distinguishes itself from the closest lookalike by name ('Do not use this to list projects — call list_projects'), though the dense mid-sentence field paths slightly blur the headline purpose.

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 routes two adjacent tasks away: create_upgrade_link for Stripe Checkout/Customer Portal, and list_projects for project listings. It also gives token-scoping rules (operator tokens must pass team_id from list_teams; team-scoped tokens may omit it). It stops short of stating when an agent should prefer this over, say, get_client or get_form, but those are clearly different resources.

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