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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious business behavior: it takes no arguments and, importantly, 'does not consume lead records' — a cost/side-effect detail the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope/no-args, then usage guidance. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 zero-parameter status read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing and the key side-effect caveat. It stops short of describing the return shape (e.g. a numeric balance), which is the one remaining gap for a tool with no output schema.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating it 'accepts no arguments,' which matches the empty schema with additionalProperties=false, though there is nothing further to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (the authenticated customer's subscription record allowance), a purpose no sibling tool shares — the siblings are all search/unlock/verify operations. An agent can immediately tell this is an account-status read, not a lead lookup.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: 'Use before requesting protected lead access or when the customer asks about remaining usage.' This ties it to the protected-lead workflow (e.g. unlock_people), though it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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