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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by disclosing exactly what account state is surfaced (plan, remaining credits, watermark flag), which is the behavior an agent needs to know before gating other calls on it.

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 identifies the subject (signed-in account) before enumerating fields, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. Every clause earns its place by naming a returned value.

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 bears responsibility for describing returns, and it does list the key fields. It stops short of covering the full account payload (e.g. identity, email, or subscription renewal details), but for a zero-parameter status tool it is nearly complete.

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 schema cannot carry semantic weight and there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a 0-param tool; no misleading parameter hints are present.

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?

States a specific verb (Shows) and a specific resource (the signed-in SnapDub account) and enumerates the returned fields: plan, credits left, and free-plan watermark status. No sibling tool returns account state, so an agent can distinguish it from list_clips/list_videos/create_video without opening a 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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer it should call this to check plan/credits before generating clips, but the description never says when to reach for it versus e.g. list_clips or create_video, and names no alternatives or preconditions.

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