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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond them: the required connection token in the Authorization header and the exact information returned. That auth requirement is genuinely useful operational context, though rate-limit/expiry behavior beyond the reset time is not discussed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the 'call before run_review' trigger, then the return payload, then the auth requirement. No filler or repetition; each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them. Combined with the auth requirement and the sibling sequencing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly before run_review.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The mention of an Authorization header is not a schema parameter but does clarify the calling precondition, adding modest value with no parameter semantics to explain.

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 names a specific resource and scope — the plan, hosted reviews used today, concurrency limit, and reset time — and explicitly positions the tool relative to run_review. An agent can tell this is a read-only allowance/quota check and not a review-execution tool without opening any schema.

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 trigger: 'Call before run_review to check the allowance,' which is a real sequencing instruction naming the sibling it precedes. It stops short of stating when not to call it or what to do with the returned numbers, so no exclusions are offered.

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