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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the snapshot does not reserve quota and writes are re-checked, publishNow consumes monthly quota without occupying the scheduled queue (even while processing), and a full queue does not block Publish Now when quota remains. It also explains how quotas are broken out (scope/units, connections breakdown).

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?

Purpose and the primary use case are front-loaded, and each following sentence carries a distinct quota-modeling rule. It is dense but not padded; the middle sentences on queue semantics are long and could be tightened slightly.

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-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the response contains (quotas with scope and units, connections breakdown, queue usage) and the limits of that data (non-reserving snapshot). Nothing an agent needs to interpret or trust the result is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by tying scheduledTime to the batch's monthly quota period and clarifying that omitting it means 'Publish Now', which the schema only phrases as 'current period'. Not a full 5 since the format details live entirely in the schema.

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 ('Read') and a precisely enumerated resource set: plan, available features, publishing quotas, schedule horizon, all scoped to 'the current personal API actor'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from company_list_contexts for the Agency/Company case, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions ('before a batch of posts or after a quota/feature error'), a decision rule for the parameter ('Omit it for Publish Now'), and names the alternative tool for the company scope. When-to-use, when-not, and alternative are all present.

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