Get pleamo plan + usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the operation returns data (plan and usage) and implies read-only behavior through the verb 'Return'. It also specifies the scope ('today's usage'), giving the agent a clear expectation. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication details beyond the implicit 'signed-in account' context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and scope immediately. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool returns (plan and today's usage) and the implicit requirement of being signed in. The siblings are unrelated, so no extra context is necessary. It is complete for a simple status 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain. The description adds no parameter information but doesn't need to, as none exist.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and identifies the exact resource ('signed-in account's plan and today's AI-check usage'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like check_url and report_false_positive, which serve very different purposes.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions. It is a simple status query, so the context is implicit, but the lack of any sibling comparison or usage notes leaves this dimension at a basic level.

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