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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. The description adds context about business tier restrictions and prerequisite checks but does not contradict annotations. The behavioral transparency is well-complemented.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds prerequisite steps. While it contains multiple sentences, each adds value and is necessary for correct usage. Could be slightly more concise but overall well-structured.

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?

Given the simple nature (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main behavior, prerequisites, and restrictions. Return values are not mentioned, but since no output schema exists, this is acceptable. The description is reasonably complete for a retrieval tool.

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 only parameter 'communityId' has no description in the schema. The description implies it identifies the community and notes interchangeability with business, but lacks explicit definition of format or source. Some compensation, but could be more specific.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves community storage usage information and clarifies that 'business' and 'community' are interchangeable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_business_storage' which likely has a different 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidelines: check permissions first, note that FREE businesses cannot use this tool, call 'check_business_tool_access' before collecting inputs, show grace-period warning and verified resubscribe link, and never proceed when access is blocked. This is comprehensive and tells when not to use it.

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