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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the account and quota information returned and linking it to plan-limit errors, though it does not discuss auth requirements or the exact response shape.

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 two tight sentences: the first front-loads all returned information, and the second gives the primary use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete because it enumerates the returned account, space, plan, and quota fields. It could be slightly richer about the response format or exact quota units, but no critical gap would prevent correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional lang parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that baseline, which is acceptable given the schema already does the work.

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 states precisely what the tool returns: signed-in identity, workspace/space, plan, and remaining monthly die/download quotas. This is a specific resource with clear fields, and it is obviously distinct from the sibling tools for dielines, mockups, projects, and inboxes.

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?

It gives a concrete usage trigger: when another Drint tool reports a plan limit. That is clear context for when to call it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (for example, for general account lookup outside a quota error).

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