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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing exactly what is returned, including permission states (allow, ask, deny) and remaining quota information. It does not discuss authentication or rate limits beyond the returned counters, but with rich annotations this is a solid addition.

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, front-loaded with the return contents and followed by the operational triggers. Every clause carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 is responsible for explaining what comes back. It does so by enumerating the key returned items and even clarifies the permission value set. The annotations cover safety behavior, and the usage guidance covers when to invoke it.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on return contents and usage triggers.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly enumerates the resources: plan, identity, permissions, remaining daily calls, patrol points, and connected accounts. It is distinguishable from most siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools like get_my_usage or list_accounts.

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 explicit usage contexts: 'at the start of a session' and 'whenever a call answered approval_required or insufficient_scope.' This is strong guidance, though it does not state when to prefer other tools or any exclusions.

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