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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but fails to mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what occurs if no active organization exists. This lack of detail reduces transparency beyond the bare minimum.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

While simple and sufficient, the description could clarify what 'active organization' refers to (e.g., context from authentication). However, given zero parameters and no output schema, it adequately covers the tool's basic functionality.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. It adds value by specifying the output (billing plan and subscription info) despite the lack of an output schema, earning a baseline of 4.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves 'current billing plan and subscription info for the active organization,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_billing_checkout or get_limits.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_billing_portal or get_usage. There are no mentions of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings alone.

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