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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower here. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the auth requirement and the concrete free-tier thresholds and quota semantics (5 GiB, 50 GB, today's validation allowance).

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 dense sentence with no waste; the auth condition is placed early and the returned items follow. The nested parentheticals make it slightly hard to scan, keeping it short of a 5.

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 carries the return-value burden and does enumerate the fields returned. It is nearly complete for a read-only report tool, missing only a contrast with the sibling my_points.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline for a no-param tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for anything.

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 states a specific resource (operator's free-tier usage and prepaid credits) and enumerates the concrete contents returned (storage, egress, credit balance, validation allowance). It is clear about what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from the similarly-named sibling my_points.

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 but never stated as when/when-not guidance, and no alternative is named. The one explicit condition, '(requires auth)', is a useful prerequisite but not a routing hint. With sibling my_points present, the absence of differentiation is a real gap.

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