Get remaining plan limits

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses important non-obvious behaviors: counters reset on the 1st, usage is shared across profiles on the same order, and only the current period is retained. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to interpret results 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides two tightly scoped caveats that directly affect how the tool should be used. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what is returned, how the period is defined, how usage is pooled, and what data is unavailable. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret the 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 input schema already documents profileUuid with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that usage is tracked per order and that profiles on the same order share the same pool, which clarifies what profileUuid selects and why different profiles may return identical values.

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 states the verb and resource: 'Get how much of the plan is left for the current period.' It explains what the tool returns and adds useful scope, though it does not explicitly contrast it with a sibling tool such as reach_listPlanFeatureAccessV1.

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 clear context for using the tool, especially around calendar-month resets and per-order pooling, and warns that past usage is not available. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this tool over an alternative.

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