reach_getRemainingPlanLimitsV1

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does so admirably: it explains the reset timing (calendar month vs billing anniversary), the shared usage pool per order, and the absence of historical data. This goes beyond a simple read operation and gives the agent critical operational knowledge, completely covering the safety and side-effect profile.

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 well-structured: a single-sentence purpose statement followed by a paragraph of essential caveats. Every sentence adds value, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary intent, making it easy to parse. The length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 the key operational semantics but lacks details about the response structure. Without an output schema, the agent is left guessing what 'how much' means (e.g., numeric values, units, percentages). Given the tool is simple and read-only, the missing return description is a minor gap, but overall the description is complete enough for most usage scenarios.

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 has a single parameter 'profileUuid' with a description 'Profile uuid parameter', which is minimal but does provide some info. The description adds no additional details about this parameter, such as format, requiredness, or how it affects the response. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get how much of the plan is left for the current period.' This is a specific verb+resource (get plan limits) with a clear scope (current period). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are unrelated to plan limits.

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 description provides important usage context in the second paragraph, explicitly warning about the calendar month reset and per-order tracking, which are critical for building alerting correctly. It also notes that only the current period is available, implying a limitation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but given the distinct purpose, this is sufficient.

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