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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important context: the call is free, never counts against a cap, and every limit is a plain number. It also explicitly states there is nothing to upgrade or sell, which helps the agent set expectations with the user. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact yet comprehensive. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage guidance, and ends with a note about Remoet's free nature. Each sentence serves a purpose—no fluff. The structure is logical: what, when, and what to expect.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what data is returned (budgets, resetsAt, limits, over-cap/grace state), when to use it, and the cost/free aspect. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret its result without additional documentation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details because there are none. It does describe the content of the response (budgets, resetsAt, limits), which indirectly helps the agent understand what the tool returns, though no output schema is provided.

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 states exactly what the tool does: retrieves the user's account status including budget limits, remaining limits, and over-cap/grace state. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by focusing specifically on account-level budget and limit information, not on data like apps, digests, or profiles.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'check eagerly' when the user asks about limits or resets, when a limit is hit, and before firing several write tools to pace. It also clarifies the tool is free and never counts against a cap, so agents can call it without hesitation. This leaves no ambiguity about appropriate invocation.

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