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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the returned fields and the pre-flight use case for large jobs, without contradicting the declared idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single sentence lists the returned information and a second short sentence gives the call trigger. No filler, and the substantive content is front-loaded.

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 present, the description usefully enumerates what the response contains (plan tier, credits, limits), which largely substitutes for a return-value spec. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it does not state the response format.

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; the baseline for a parameterless tool 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?

Starts with a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates exactly what is returned: plan tier, credits, per-request and per-job limits, and rate limits. This clearly separates it from the job-oriented siblings (get_job_status, get_job_detail), though the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

The closing instruction 'Call before large jobs' gives a concrete trigger for invocation, which is exactly the kind of proactive guidance an agent needs. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, but there are no real sibling tools it could be confused with for this purpose.

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