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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the "null means unlimited" semantics and the reason for checking, but does not cover quota reset timing or what happens when the limit is reached — modest added value against an already-informative annotation set.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads what is returned, the second supplies the usage trigger. 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully — count this month, limit with null meaning unlimited, and plan tier. Enough for an agent to call and interpret it correctly without further information.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description appropriately spends no words on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and precisely enumerates the resource contents: repurpose count this month, monthly limit, and plan tier. The purpose is unmistakable and cannot be confused with mutation or history-list siblings, though it never explicitly references a sibling it is distinct from.

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?

"Check before a large repurposing run so it does not stop halfway" gives clear, actionable when-to-use context tied to the repurpose_content workflow. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, but the positive trigger is well-specified.

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