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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the information scope (plan limits, destinations, credits); it says nothing about freshness, auth scopes, or whether limits are per-workspace or per-user.

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, no filler. The content list comes first and the usage cue is placed at the end where it reads as a routing instruction.

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 carrying the enumeration of returned fields is doing the necessary work. It covers plan, schedule allowance, destinations and credits, but leaves the exact units/format of "cloud credits" and the schedule limit unspecified.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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?

Specific verb ("Show") plus a concrete resource ("linked user's Lection plan") and an enumeration of what it surfaces: schedule allowance, delivery destinations, cloud credits. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_my_schedules or list_my_runs, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers: "Use before scheduling or when a plan limit is hit." No when-not conditions and no named alternatives, but the pre-flight context is clear enough for an agent to pick this over a listing tool.

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