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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds value beyond that by describing the exact return contents (store identity, plan, quota), which matters because no output schema exists. It doesn't cover error behavior or whether quota is per-seat/shared, keeping it below 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 what is returned before the usage guidance. Every clause carries information: return fields, usage timing, and the no-argument fact.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and it does so concretely for a read-only, zero-parameter tool. Minor gaps remain around quota semantics (reset cadence, what happens at zero) but nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool takes no parameters and the description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' correctly reinforcing the empty schema. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies, with no additional parameter nuance possible.

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 (Returns) and enumerates exactly what comes back: the connected store name/platform, the Shootika plan, and the remaining monthly frame quota. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_product or get_shoot, which return different resources.

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 usage context – 'use it first to learn what the store can do' and 'before starting shoots to check frames remain' – which effectively sequences it before start_shoot/request_scene. It doesn't name an explicit alternative or any when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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