Get plan and usage

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: entitlements are populated only for owners and are null for other members, mirroring the web app. That permission-dependent output nuance is valuable context an agent could not derive from the schema or 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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the usage trigger is placed at the end where it reads naturally as a call-to-action. The opening sentence is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, a minor structural weakness but not wasteful.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it enumerates the returned fields and explains the null-entitlements case. Only the organizationId parameter's semantics remain unspecified, which is a small residual gap for a single-key tool.

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 single parameter (organizationId) is never explained in the description, so no format or sourcing guidance is added beyond the schema. With only one obvious required parameter the practical risk is low, keeping this at the baseline.

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 names the concrete resources returned — subscription, tracked-query count, projected monthly checks — so an agent knows exactly what this tool fetches, going beyond the bare tool name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling get_organization_overview, leaving that discrimination to inference.

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?

"Use it before creating tracked queries or raising check frequency, to stay within the plan" gives an explicit trigger condition and motivation for calling the tool. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to use it, so it lands just below the top tier.

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