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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them. It explains the session-counting rule, the free-rehearsal implication, the billing boundary, and the instruction to share links rather than open them.

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 front-loaded and most sentences carry useful context, especially the counting rule and usage guidance. The opening enumeration of return fields is somewhat redundant with the output schema, so it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

Given a zero-parameter read tool with a rich annotation profile and an output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers purpose, timing, quota behavior, billing scope, and link-handling guidance.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description is needed to compensate for missing schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: returns the account's plan, limits, usage, summary, and pricing_url. It is clearly distinct from the deck/presentation siblings, so an agent can identify this as the account metadata tool without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly names when to use it: before writing a deck to check limits, or when a quota or participant-limit error occurs. It also sets a clear boundary that billing is managed on the Sparka account page, not through this tool.

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