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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint: true, and the description aligns by using 'Read'. It also adds context about what is returned (running month, limit, reset date, monthly totals, project breakdown) and notes the prerequisite 'Requires organization context', giving a clear behavioral picture without needing to restate the read-only hint.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then provides concise detail on the three view variants and a practical use case. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description is complete for a simple read-only tool: it explains the resource, the views, the output highlights (limit, reset date, totals, breakdown), and the context requirement. Since there is no output schema, the description sufficiently sketches the return content, though it does not enumerate exact fields or response codes.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (view and months), so schema coverage is 100%. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what each view value returns (e.g., 'current' returns running month with limit and reset date, 'history' returns monthly totals), which adds meaningful semantics for parameter selection.

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 clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('organization's mock request usage'), and specifies it returns usage against the plan limit. It also distinguishes itself from sibling read tools by focusing on mock requests and by describing the three views, so an agent can immediately identify this as the tool for mock usage.

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 provides a clear use case ('This is what to check when mock requests start being rejected') and explains the three view options, which guides selection of parameters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the specific resource and use case are sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like get_usage_limits.

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