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

The word 'Check' signals a read-only operation, and 'current user' indicates scoping, which is useful given no annotations are provided. But the description doesn't disclose the return format, possible errors, or behavior when no plan/limits exist, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter getter, and the description covers the essential purpose and scope. The lack of return details is a minor gap, but the tool's low complexity means the description is largely adequate for correct invocation.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds useful context by specifying that limits are scoped to the current user, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact resource ('current user tariff plan and available short link limits'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling short-link CRUD tools, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 context is implied by the purpose: use this tool when you need the current user's plan or link limits. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tools are clearly different operations.

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