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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that the value is DB-stored and takes effect immediately with no deploy, that existing teams and live subscriptions are untouched, and that the tool is operator-gated. That is precisely the mutation-impact context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads 'OPERATOR ONLY' and the core verb+resource, then layers scope constraints in a compact run of sentences. Slightly dense and a touch long, but each sentence (blast radius, read mode, sibling pointer) earns its place; nothing is filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the operator gate, the read/write duality, the immediate-effect storage model, and the explicit scope of what is not affected. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter already carries its own description, including the 'omit to read' behavior. The description restates the enum values and the omit-for-read semantics rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: reads or sets the install-wide default price tier that new teams are created on. It explicitly disambiguates from the related sibling li_set_team_billing and from the per-team control, so an agent can place it correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Names the operator-only precondition, the exact call pattern ('Omit `tier` to read it'), the effect boundary (existing teams keep their own tier; use li_set_team_billing for those), and the non-effect on live subscriptions. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered with an explicit alternative.

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