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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, and the description reinforces it with 'Read.' It adds extra context about the required organization context and describes what each view returns, which is valuable beyond the annotation.

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 few sentences but each adds value: purpose, view-specific outputs, when to use, and alternative. It is slightly verbose but well-structured and not repetitive.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what each view returns and mentions the prerequisite of organization context. It also points to the alternative tool for individual requests, covering key operational context.

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 coverage is 100% with both params described, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic depth by explaining what 'current' returns (running month with limit and reset date), 'history' (monthly totals), and 'breakdown' (current month split by project), which goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 verb 'Read' and the specific resource 'organization's mock request usage against its plan limit,' which is precise. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_request_logs by expressly directing individual request lookups there.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'This is what to check when mock requests start being rejected' and 'Use this for request usage against the plan limit; for the individual requests use get_request_logs.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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