Get plan and limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses that workspace limits are inherited from the owner's plan, a non-obvious inheritance rule an agent could not infer from the schema. It does not mention cost, caching, or freshness of the returned limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents and ending on the actionable rationale. The middle sentence is long but each clause names a distinct limit dimension, so nothing is padding; it could be tightened slightly.

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?

An output schema carries the return shape, and the description supplies the conceptual framing the schema cannot: what the limits mean, how workspace vs. user plan interact, and why the caller should check before refusing. Nothing needed to invoke a no-arg read tool is missing.

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 baseline is 4; the description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead explains that limits are resolved per workflow owner rather than passed in.

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 verb+resource ('Read the user's plan and its limits') and enumerates what those limits cover: saved/live workflows, deployed tools offered to agents, and included features. No sibling tool in the list deals with plan/entitlement data, so the boundary is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: consult it before telling a user something is impossible, because refusals are often plan limits. There is no competing alternative tool to route away from, so no exclusions are needed, but it stops short of stating when the call is unnecessary.

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