Get usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds what annotations cannot — that exceeding the limit blocks card creation until deletion or upgrade, and that paid plans return unlimited=true and limit=null. These are genuinely useful state facts beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and organized by field meaning. Slightly dense in the middle sentence about referral bonuses, but every sentence carries information an agent needs to interpret the output.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values — and it does, field by field, including the subtle point that by_type includes comments and lines whose counting toward 'used' is decided by Milanote. An agent can interpret the response without any further source.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the response fields (used, exceeded, unlimited, limit, by_type), which is where all the agent-facing semantics live for this tool.

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?

Opens with a specific statement: reports how many cards the account uses against the free plan limit, broken down by card type. An agent can tell exactly what the tool returns. It doesn't differentiate from siblings, but none of the listed siblings overlap with usage reporting, so that absence is harmless.

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 (check quota before adding cards, since exceeding the limit blocks new cards), but the description never says explicitly when to call it or that there is no alternative. The statement that Milanote refuses new cards once exceeded gives implicit context, not routing guidance.

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