Get billing state

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the consequence of a lapsed org ('read-only and its writes return 402'), indicating that the tool reports whether the caller may manage billing, and noting whether Stripe self-serve is configured. This is valuable behavioral context not implied by readOnlyHint alone, and it does not contradict the 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?

The description is dense but efficient: one front-loaded sentence states the purposeament and then lists all meaningful return aspects in a compact, organized list. Every clause adds information an agent would need, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description effectively enumerates the content an agent can expect, including edge-case behaviors like the 402 on writes and the Stripe configuration flag. It also covers permissions and parameter defaults through context, making the tool fully approachable for correct invocation.

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 already fully documents the single optional 'org' parameter, including accepted forms (id, slug, or name), the default resolution order, and a pointer to list_orgs. With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read an organisation's plan and billing state', then enumerates the exact fields returned (plan, status, seat count, trial end, period end, entitlement, manage permission, Stripe configuration). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling tools like billing_manage_url or server_info.

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 gives clear context on when this tool is appropriate: it is a read-only retrieval of billing state and explicitly states 'Any member may read it'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can decide to use it for reading billing rather than for generating a billing management URL.

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