Get plan usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that plan-limit failures are deterministic rather than transient and that retries are ineffective. This helps the agent interpret failures correctly.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states what the tool reports, and the second provides a critical operational warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, a complete output schema, and annotations that cover the safety profile. The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and how to interpret a plan-limit failure. Nothing essential is missing.

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 only parameter, id_organization, is fully documented in the schema, including optionality and automatic resolution when a default organization exists. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so with 100% schema coverage the 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 clearly identifies the resource (the organization's plan) and what is being reported: allowance versus already-used amounts across publications, accounts, storage, and integrations. This is a concrete read operation and is distinct from sibling tools like get_social_limits, which target social-specific limits rather than plan-level usage.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this tool: check it before promising the user a batch of posts, because a plan limit is not a transient error and retrying will not fix it. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contextual trigger is clear and actionable.

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