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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the output differs based on whether an lp_ API key is present, which is not captured by the annotations.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds the conditional plan-status behavior without any redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.

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, a full output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the only missing context: what category of information the tool returns and how key presence changes the result. Nothing needed for correct invocation is omitted.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description reinforces that no input is required, which is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('lucid.page account matrix', 'plan status'), and clarifies the two display modes (anonymous vs lp_ API key). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling document operations like get_doc or list_docs.

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 implies usage: call this tool to inspect account limits and plan status, especially before or after other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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