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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the tool returns not just raw values but also instructional wording meant to be relayed to users, and that it is tied to the current connection's plan. 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 a single sentence with a colon-separated list; every listed item conveys a distinct piece of the expected response. It is dense but not bloated, although the opening 'How to get full access' is slightly convoluted and could have been phrased more directly as 'Returns...'.

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 fully inventories the categories of returned information (plan, caps, prices, URLs, API key instructions, user wording). An agent knows exactly what to expect from the call, and annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing essential 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 the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying what the no-argument call will surface, which indirectly helps the agent understand there is nothing to configure before invoking it.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool provides: current plan, row caps, prices, URLs, API key passing, and user-facing wording. This is a specific resource (access/pricing info for the connection) with a clear scope that distinguishes it from the data-focused siblings like query_dataset and search_datasets.

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 phrasing 'How to get full access' and 'wording to use when telling a user how to get every row' establishes a clear use case: retrieving access guidance and pricing details for an end-user. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the domain is distinct enough from the sibling tools that an agent can infer when to select it.

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