Token identity

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 covered. The description adds genuine value by noting that user is null for an API token, which is a real behavioral quirk an agent must handle. However, it does not describe response shape or what 'the rest' of the plan features contains, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 compact two-clause sentence with no padding, and the most important content (what identity is returned) comes first. The phrase 'and the rest' is loose and slightly undercuts the precision, keeping it from a 5.

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 full burden of explaining return values. It names api_tokens_enabled, retention_days, and the user-null case, but dismisses the remaining fields as 'the rest', leaving an agent unsure what else to expect from a plan-features payload.

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 of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs, and nothing about the input contract is ambiguous.

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 identifies the resource precisely: the organisation the token is bound to plus resolved plan features, and it clarifies the user field semantics for API tokens. It reads as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource, so it is clear but slightly less crisp than a well-formed definition. No sibling overlaps with identity/plan inspection, so differentiation is not needed here.

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 tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The zero-parameter, obviously diagnostic nature of the tool makes usage inferable, but the description itself provides no guidance.

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