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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces 'read-only diagnostic' and, importantly, discloses that it returns a structured summary object with named keys, which annotations cannot convey. It omits error behavior for unauthenticated or invalid workspace IDs, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope of inspection before the usage directive and return shape. The long enumeration of tier/quota values is information-dense but each item is genuinely inspectable output, so it earns its place; slightly sentence-heavy but well ordered.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned object's keys (workspace, planLimits, usage, billing, profiles, connectedAccounts), and it establishes the auth model via the API key mention. Missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens with an invalid workspaceId.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the apiKey override and workspaceId tenant-selection semantics are already documented in the schema. The prose adds no further parameter detail (no format hints, no interaction between apiKey and the Authorization header), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (inspect) and resource (authenticated workspace's account status), then enumerates exactly what is surfaced: subscription tier values, quota limits, monthly post usage, API key prefix, Stripe billing status, and brand profiles. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like billing_upgrade or accounts_manage.

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 states when to reach for it: before connecting new social accounts or launching high-volume campaigns, to verify quota availability and readiness. It does not name an alternative tool for the upgrade path (e.g., billing_upgrade), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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