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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description adds behavioral boundaries beyond that by stating it must not reveal private email, collect payments, charge credits, change the wallet, or generate media. It does not describe response shape or potential limitations, but the added exclusions are meaningful.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the first enumerates triggering intents, the second enumerates exclusions. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the title.

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 parameters, read-only annotations, and a clear enumeration of returned data (account, balance, trial state, spending limits, destinations), the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly. The only mildly opaque term, 'safe account destinations,' is a minor domain detail.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it adds value by enumerating the account-related data points an agent can expect.

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 clear resource (MaxVideoAI account) and the exact data the tool exposes: connected account, credit balance, trial state, spending limits, and safe account destinations. It also distances itself from sibling tools by excluding media generation, so an agent can distinguish it from get_generation_status and list_media.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('when the user asks which MaxVideoAI account is connected...') and an explicit do-not-use list covering private email, payment details, charging credits, wallet changes, and media generation. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over alternatives.

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