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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context the annotations lack: the result reflects the caller's auth identity and includes a consumable daily quota ('today's facts calls left'), which implies per-day resets. It stops short of stating what happens at zero quota or whether the counters are real-time.

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?

A single dense sentence with no waste, front-loading the identity concept before the list of reported items. The colon-separated list is slightly packed but each clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does by naming the four categories of information returned (licences, Storylines plan, facts-call balance, upgrade path). Missing only detail on format and what an exhausted quota looks like.

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 correctly describes a no-input introspection call.

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 enumerates what the tool reports – the signed-in connection's licence coverage, Storylines plan, remaining daily facts calls, and upgrade location – which distinguishes it from catalog tools like get_products and list_leagues. It never uses an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'reports', relying on the indirect framing 'What this connection is signed in as', but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the entitlement-adjacent siblings get_products, list_leagues, or get_storylines_facts, and no prerequisites stated. The phrase 'where to add more' hints at an upgrade workflow but never says to call this before purchasing or when quota errors occur.

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