Check storage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the trailing 'Read-only' adds nothing; however, the description contributes real behavioral context the annotations lack: a plan-level gating rule and the prerequisite lookup that must precede a valid call. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

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 tight clauses with no padding. The plan constraint is front-loaded ahead of the capability statement, which is mildly backwards for an agent scanning for purpose first, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so explicitly (bytes, percent, upload availability). Combined with the plan gate and prerequisite, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The prerequisite-check instruction effectively supplies the only 'input' that matters (the account plan).

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?

Concretely states the returned content: storage used in bytes and percent, plus whether more can be uploaded. The 'Recordful Pro only' gate and the mention of get_status as a prerequisite separate it from sibling tools like list_videos or get_video, though it never explicitly names an alternative it replaces.

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?

Provides a clear precondition (Recordful Pro plan, verified via get_status recorder.account.plan first), which tells the agent both when the tool is valid and what to call beforehand. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. what to do if the plan check fails.

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