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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real context by disclosing the contents of the payload (plan tier, allotments, usage, upgrade tiers), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting auth or tenancy requirements, but for a zero-argument read-only call that is minor.

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 front-loaded sentence with enumerated return contents and no filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent will receive and the safety profile is already carried by annotations. Only the distinction from omniforce_upgrade as the acting counterpart is left unstated.

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 no parameters, so the standard baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for on the input side.

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 verb ('Return') and enumerates the exact resources retrieved: plan tier, included allotments, current usage, and available upgrade tiers. There is no explicit sibling differentiation, but the informational scope contrasts implicitly with the action-oriented omniforce_upgrade.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the read-only status check to run before deciding whether to call omniforce_upgrade. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternative is given, so routing rests on inference.

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