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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context by specifying the required scope and that the data is account-only, but it does not explain pagination behavior or how to page through results.

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 two short sentences with no wasted text. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the scope requirement follows immediately.

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?

The description covers what data categories are returned and the required scope, which is helpful for a simple two-parameter read tool. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it leaves important invocation details—especially how to use limit and before_seq for pagination—unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. It gives no meaning for 'limit' or 'before_seq', leaving the agent with no description-level guidance on pagination or ordering.

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 verb and resource: reading board usage, including root-post summaries, visible activity, and remaining shared posting capacity. It is reasonably clear what data is returned, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling get_usage tool.

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?

The only guidance is a required scope ('usage:read'), which is an invocation prerequisite rather than usage guidance. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus get_usage or other board-related read tools.

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