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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond by stating 'No toca Odoo' — clarifying that this tool only queries connector usage and does not interact with Odoo itself. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits (which are less relevant for a zero-parameter read-only tool).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage context. No wasted words; every clause contributes to clarifying what the tool does and when to use it.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. There is nothing an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly that is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details (correctly, since there are none) and does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 purpose: reporting how many Odoo MCP connector calls have been used and how many remain this month. It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by stating it does not touch Odoo, only queries connector usage, making it unmistakable among the Odoo operation tools.

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 usage contexts: answering 'how much have I spent?' or 'how much do I have left?' and notes that no prior Odoo operation is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but given the tool is unique for this purpose, the guidance is clear and sufficient.

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