Get plan usage

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description meaningfully adds context: plan limits are permanent constraints, publications are unlimited on all plans, and rate limits are the transient obstacle. This exceeds what annotations alone convey and directly shapes agent behavior.

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?

Each of the three sentences serves a distinct purpose: first defines the resource, second gives a critical usage warning, third clarifies what is unlimited versus what is rate-limited. No filler or repetition; content is front-loaded and actionable.

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?

Given the tool's simple input, the annotations fully covering safety, and an output schema existing, the description provides all necessary decision-making context. It covers when to use it, what it returns conceptually, and how it differs from related tools, leaving no functional gap.

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 single parameter id_organization is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with its optionality and default resolution behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 defines the tool's scope: reporting what the organization's plan allows and what has already been used (accounts, storage, integrations). It distinguishes itself from get_social_limits by referencing that rate limits are covered separately, making its unique purpose immediately recognizable.

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?

It explicitly tells agents when to check this tool: before promising a connected account, and it warns that plan limits are not transient so retrying never helps. It also directs agents to get_social_limits for rate-related limits, giving concrete alternative routing.

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