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

Annotations already declare a safe, closed read, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: plan-level gating for FREE businesses independent of feature rows, a mandatory pre-flight access check, and handling of grace-period warnings and verified resubscribe links. This is exactly the kind of authorization and edge-case disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, terminology, gating precondition, and warning handling. The blocking constraint is front-loaded before the input-collection instructions, so an agent reading only the first lines still avoids the wrong call.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the definition covers purpose, access gating, and warnings thoroughly. There is no output schema and the description does not hint at what storage figures come back, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one for selecting the 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns an increment by explaining that "business" and "community" are interchangeable, which resolves the naming mismatch between the parameter (communityId) and the tool name (business). It adds no further constraint on the value itself beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource: "Retrieve community storage usage information." It also disambiguates the community/business terminology, which is useful given sibling names split across both words. It does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as check_business_storage, get_community_storage, or check_community_storage, so the agent cannot tell get-vs-check apart from the description alone.

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 explicit preconditions: check business permissions, call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, and never proceed when access is blocked. It also supplies a hard exclusion (FREE businesses cannot use this tool regardless of feature rows). It stops short of naming which alternative to use when access is blocked or when a different storage tool is the better fit.

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