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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that this is the diagnostic source for quota state ('why a live tool was paused') and by specifying that usage is measured 'today' against daily limits and monthly allowances, which conveys freshness semantics.

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?

It is front-loaded with the resource scope before the usage sentence, so an agent can stop reading early. The parenthetical enumerating five live-tool categories ('live offers, live product refreshes, live searches, best-seller lists, cross-web checks') is somewhat verbose, but each item does delineate covered data rather than padding.

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 is the only place return contents can be described, and it does so thoroughly. No parameters and a read-only annotation profile mean little else is required; the only minor omission is whether the data is scoped strictly to the authenticated account.

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, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correspondingly avoids inventing parameter-like inputs, correctly signaling a no-argument call.

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 resource (the user's Webotee plan and usage) and enumerates exactly what it covers: plan/price, subscription status, renewal or end date, AI Connect calls used today, live-tool usage, and monthly allowance consumption. An agent can distinguish it from data-oriented siblings such as my_store, my_products, or webotee_job_status, though no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen that boundary.

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 explicit triggers: 'Use when the user asks about their plan, limits, remaining calls or why a live tool was paused.' That covers when-to-use including a diagnostic scenario, but it offers no when-not-to-use conditions and doesn't point to an alternative tool for adjacent questions.

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