Get workspace billing and quota usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's only added behavioral content is that the output is intended as decision context before recommending changes; it says nothing about freshness of quota data, caching, or account/permission scoping.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first states contents, the second states purpose. Contents are front-loaded before the recommendation guidance.

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 return-value burden and does list the key returned fields, which is the right call. It stops short of noting units, freshness, or what happens when no plan data exists, but for a zero-arg read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The field enumeration in the description effectively describes the (empty) call's result shape rather than inputs.

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?

Specific verb+resource with an enumeration of what it returns (plan, subscription status, quota usage, events/apps against limits). It's clearly not a mutation or a listing of apps, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_workspace_overview, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

'Useful context before recommending changes that would affect event volume or app count' gives a situational trigger, which is more than nothing. But there are no explicit when-not conditions, no named alternative (e.g. get_workspace_overview), and no prerequisites stated — the agent must infer the rest.

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