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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is scoped to the connected account, returns specific account-state fields, and is explicitly free to call.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the returned account data and includes the relevant 'Free' cost note. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it identifies the account scope, the returned fields, and the free cost. It could be slightly richer about the account context, but no output schema exists and the key information an agent needs is present.

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, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The schema is empty and fully covered, and the description correctly adds no fabricated parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Shows', with the resource 'connected Adseezy account' and names the exact fields returned: credit balance, current plan, and remaining daily spend. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_video, create_ad, and estimate_cost.

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 by the stated fields: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs account balance, plan, or daily spending capacity. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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