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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Check') with no side effects, which is transparent for a simple status tool. It lacks details like authentication or return format, but these are not critical for a no-parameter read operation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists the two key outputs. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, single purpose), the description is practically complete. It conveys exactly what the tool does. Minor gap: it does not describe the format of the returned credit/plan info, but this is not essential for a status check.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, there is nothing to explain, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist.

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 clearly states 'Check remaining audit credits and current plan status' with a specific verb ('Check') and two concrete resources (audit credits and plan status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_audit_status, which focuses on audit status rather than usage.

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?

The description implies usage for checking credits and plan status, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like seo_audit_status or seo_history. The context of 'usage' is implicit, not stated as a precondition or alternative.

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