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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered by structured data. The description adds value by disclosing the payload contents (email, plan, remaining allowance), telling the agent what information it can actually obtain. It stops short of noting anything about caching or cost of the call, but the context is sufficient.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and then the returned fields. Nothing is redundant or restated from the title.

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 present, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming the three key pieces of data. It is slightly incomplete in not specifying whether allowance values are counts, percentages, or reset windows, but it is adequate for a simple zero-parameter read.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly makes no attempt to document inputs it does not have.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource (the connected Pastes.io account) and enumerates what is revealed: email, plan, and remaining paste-creation and read/search allowance. This is clearly distinct from the sibling paste-CRUD tools, which operate on individual pastes rather than account-level state.

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 by the resource: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs account identity or quota information. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when not to call it, and no alternative tool cited.

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