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

Even though annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: plan capacity details, what counts toward submission limits, expansion pack semantics, retention rules, and brand mode values. It also discloses token authorization behavior, which goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 long but dense; every sentence carries decision-relevant information such as plan limits, token requirements, or alternative tool routing. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, though the plan-pricing detail could arguably be trimmed without losing core callability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the agent will receive or need to interpret. It covers plan semantics, usage counting, limits, expansion packs, retention, branding modes, token requirements, and sibling tool alternatives, making it complete for correct invocation and expectation-setting.

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 schema already documents team_id fully, including its format and the operator/team-scoped distinction, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces this by adding operational context about when team_id is required and when it may be omitted, which is helpful but largely redundant with the schema's parameter description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "read the team's plan, usage this month, limits, expansion_packs, retention_days, and branding." It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by explicitly saying "Do not use this to list projects — call list_projects," and it routes to create_upgrade_link for upgrade actions.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it names create_upgrade_link as the alternative for Stripe Checkout operations, and it states that list_projects should be used instead of this tool for project listing. It also gives concrete token-scoping rules, telling operator tokens to pass team_id and team-scoped tokens to omit it.

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