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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it is accessible to every role (no auth gating) and it mirrors the values shown in the Usage screen and sidebar meter, telling the agent the data is presentation-consistent. No return format or size hints beyond that, but the annotation floor is already low.

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?

Front-loaded with the subject ('The organization's plan') before the enumeration, and it caps off with a useful consistency note rather than trailing off. The single sentence is long and comma-heavy, but each listed item is a distinct plan attribute, so nothing is 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 has to carry the return-value burden, and it does: it lists credits, rollover behavior, byte-to-credit ratio, recall cost, recall cap, payload retention, and overage behavior. That is close to a field-level summary. The remaining gap is that it never states the response shape or whether values are static per billing period.

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. Baseline of 4 applies; the field enumeration describes contents rather than arguments, which is the correct use of space here.

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?

It names a specific resource (the organization's plan) and enumerates precisely what that plan covers — credits, rollover, caps, payload retention. The title supplies the verb. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_credit_balance or get_usage, though 'Mirrors the plan the Usage screen and the sidebar meter show' partly does that work.

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?

Usage is implied — call it to inspect plan terms — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (get_credit_balance, get_usage) that an agent might confuse with it. The closing note that 'every role holds it' rules out a permission gate, which is the only real guidance offered.

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