Get usage

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It does add a time window ('this month's') and the plan scoping, which are useful behavioral facts not present in the annotations or the empty schema, but it does not clarify what counts as a 'render' (PDFs vs template renders) or when the count resets.

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 front-loaded clause with no filler; every item listed corresponds to a distinct value the caller receives. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, which reads slightly clipped but wastes nothing.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back, and it enumerates the key fields. However, it omits the reset period and the unit definition of the render count, both of which an agent needs to reason about a quota result.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-wise the description needs to explain. The description does implicitly confirm the scope is the caller's own plan, which is consistent with a parameterless call.

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 resource (this month's render count, limit, remaining quota, rate limit for the plan) precisely enough that an agent can distinguish it from all siblings (render_pdf, screenshot, list_templates, render_template, verify_receipt), none of which report quota. It lacks an explicit verb, reading as a list of returned values rather than a statement of action, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. An agent can infer it is a pre-flight check before rendering, but that inference is never stated in the description.

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