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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without prose. The description still adds real value by disclosing the scope of the reading — quota is per connection, and it is reported on both a daily and monthly window — which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the plan, the metric, and both time windows are all stated up front. Nothing would be lost by keeping it exactly as is.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers what is being measured and over which periods. The only shortfall is the absence of any hint about whether the call costs quota itself or how often it should be re-checked.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments and makes clear the result is implicitly scoped to the current connection.

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?

States a specific verb (show) and specific resources: the seodata.dev plan bound to this connection plus remaining keyword lookups for today and this month. That is clearly distinct from the lookup_keyword(s) siblings, which consume quota rather than report it, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the pre-flight check before burning keyword lookups, but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before lookup_keywords) or that it takes no arguments and is safe to poll. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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