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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the hints, explicitly guaranteeing that the tool 'never changes the plan or takes payment.' It also details the side effect of the local install flag on the `open` parameter.

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 slightly verbose but highly effective. Every sentence addresses a specific functional, safety, or usage aspect, ensuring the complexity of the tool is handled without excessive fluff.

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 simplicity of the schema and annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what data it returns (plan/quotas/link), what it does not do (no payment/changes), and how it behaves in different environments.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description isn't required to explain parameters, but it provides valuable operational semantics for the single input. It clarifies that the 'open' parameter's function changes based on whether the environment is local or hosted, linking the parameter's intent to its runtime effect.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: showing the current MisarDev plan, the remaining quotas for specific resources (build, edits, projects), and providing the link to upgrade. It clearly delineates this status check from the actual upgrade action, distinguishing it from other modification siblings.

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 provides crucial temporal guidance by stating the tool should be called 'any time — not only after hitting a limit,' which dictates when the agent can reasonably invoke it.

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