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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: it enumerates the quota categories that can block an agent, states trial and guarantee windows, notes cancellation status is informational only, and mentions the included pricing link.

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 core statement is front-loaded, but everything after the colon is one very long run-on enumeration that overlaps what the existing output schema already exposes. A short grouped list (quota limits / trial and billing state / cancellation flag) would deliver the same value in less space.

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 no explanation, and the description still sketches the payload shape and the read-only boundary. An agent has enough to decide to call it and to interpret results without further reading.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify and it correctly makes no parameter claims. No gaps to compensate for.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ('Gets the workspace plan and every limit') with an explicit inventory of covered limits: competitor slots, research allowance, battlecard caps, trial end, guarantee, cancellation state. This clearly separates it from get_workspace and get_delivery_settings, which cover different configuration domains.

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?

'Every limit an agent runs into' signals the use case (check quotas before they block work), and the parenthetical '(read only: an admin cancels in Billing)' explicitly excludes the mutation path and points elsewhere. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest siblings such as get_workspace, so it stops short of a 5.

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