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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific data it returns (plan, payment state, modules, quota), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as potential staleness, permission requirements, or side effects. Given annotation coverage, the added context is moderate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality and followed by a practical usage note. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It does not mention any limitations, but none are apparent for this read-only status tool.

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, and the schema shows no properties, so schema coverage is 100%. Per the calibration baseline, this warrants a 4. The description does not need to explain parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Show the current organisation plan, subscription/payment state, enabled modules, and quota usage.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the added usage note ('Use before deciding whether an agentic operation is allowed') gives it distinct purpose, differentiating it from siblings like get_subscription or check_plan_operation.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use before deciding whether an agentic operation is allowed.' This clearly positions it as a pre-check for operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or scenarios where it should not be used, so it falls short of full 5.

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