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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what data is returned (plan, status, limits, usage, MCP calls this month), which is useful. It doesn't disclose any side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements, but for a read-only tool with annotations, this is acceptable.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the key information: what the tool shows and the specific data points. No wasted words, and the MCP calls detail adds value without bloating the text.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the organization_id comes from list_sites, but that's already in the schema. The only minor gap is not describing the output format, but there's no output schema and the description lists the data points, which is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter organization_id is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource: an organization's subscription details, including plan, status, limits, and current usage. It also mentions MCP calls this month, which adds specificity and distinguishes it from other get_* tools.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when you need subscription/plan/usage information for an organization. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context signals and sibling list show many get_* tools; the description's focus on subscription/usage is clear enough to guide selection. A small gap: no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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