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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it discloses the shape of the returned figures and the important semantic that a null limit means no cap, which prevents misreading null as zero or missing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the use condition, followed by return semantics and then the exclusion. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, return semantics and the null-limit edge case. With no output schema, a brief note on the numeric fields returned or any plan-related caveats would make it fully complete.

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 is a single optional parameter whose schema description is complete (100% coverage) and already explains omitting it unless there are multiple organizations, pointing at patroltech_account_get_context. The description adds nothing about the organization parameter, so this sits at the baseline where the schema carries the semantics.

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 resource (account usage) and names the exact counters returned: checkpoints, locations and managers against their limits. It also draws a clear boundary against operational-data siblings, so an agent can distinguish it from patroltech_checkpoints_list or patroltech_patrollers_get_stats without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when you want to know how many ... are used against the account limits') and adds an exclusion ('Do not use when you need operational data'). The exclusion is directional but generic — it doesn't name the specific alternative tool for operational data, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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