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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about what is surfaced (plan, credits, watermark and length limits) and links that to job refusals, but says nothing about authentication requirements, freshness of the credit count, or failure 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource before listing its contents. The trailing relative clause and parenthetical make it slightly dense, but every element carries information and nothing is padding.

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 burden of describing returns and does so adequately by naming plan, credits, and the specific limits. It is a zero-parameter read tool, so little else is required; only a note on when to consult it would complete the picture.

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 no parameters, so there is no argument semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Shows the connected Klipa account') and enumerates what is returned: plan, credits, and applicable limits. This is clearly distinct from the job- and video-oriented siblings, so an agent can identify it without inspecting the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the clause about limits 'explaining why a job can be refused' hints that this tool is a diagnostic or pre-flight check, but the description never states when to call it or when to prefer estimate_credits instead. The agent must infer that this is the right first stop before submitting work.

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