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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Free,' which is ambiguous, and doesn't disclose return format, authentication needs, or any side effects. As a read-only get, it implies safety, but that is not stated.

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 with a colon-separated list of contents. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, earning full marks.

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 0-parameter tool, the description lists the main content areas (plan, credits, limits), which is adequate at a high level. However, without an output schema, it lacks detail on the exact structure of the returned data, and 'Free' is vague. It meets the minimum viable standard.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to clarify.

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 the tool retrieves workspace info, listing plan, credits, and limits. It uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_credits or get_account, which also deal with related concepts.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'Free' hints at no cost but is vague and doesn't clarify contexts such as checking workspace-level limits versus per-account metrics.

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