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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result (limits, counts, unset settings, suggested phrases) even though no output schema exists; it stops short of saying what happens when no plan is configured.

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 return payload, followed by a single conditional usage line. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the result, and it does so thoroughly for a read-only status tool. The only soft spot is the vague phrase 'the next few things the practitioner can say', which leaves the format of that portion unclear.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed by framing it as a status read.

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?

The description names a specific verb (Returns) and enumerates exactly what is returned: plan and active Clients vs limit, open Chases per Quarter, unset settings, and suggested next phrases. That enumeration clearly separates it from siblings like list_clients or whos_outstanding, which return single resource types rather than a consolidated status.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when: the practitioner asks where they're up to or what to do next.' That is a clear usage context, but it does not name alternatives (e.g. whos_outstanding for outstanding items only) or state when not to use it.

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