Account and usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the daily-cap behavior and that the next free run time is included. It says nothing about data freshness, whether the plan/usage figures are cached, or what the response looks like.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the three returned pieces of data and keeps the conditional daily-cap detail as a trailing parenthetical. Slightly awkward phrasing in the parenthetical, but nothing is redundant.

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 burden of explaining return content, and it does so for all three data points including the cap edge case. Minor gaps remain around freshness and whether plan details are account-wide or workspace-scoped, but for a zero-parameter read the coverage is adequate.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste words on 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?

The description names the concrete data returned — plan, this month's usage, and remaining daily runs — so an agent knows this is an account/quota status read rather than a run-management call. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling such as list_runs or run_status, so differentiation is inferred from the returned fields rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of remaining runs today and the next free slot hints that this is the tool to call before starting work when a cap might apply. There is no explicit 'call this when...' guidance and no statement of when not to use it versus siblings like list_runs or check_data.

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