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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds value by disclosing the specific account attributes returned (quota, trial usage, consent), but says nothing about auth requirements or freshness of the data.

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 listing the four returned fields, with the Vietnamese translation mirroring it. The bilingual duplication is redundant for a purely English-reading agent but appears deliberate for the audience, and nothing else is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so by enumerating all four fields. Combined with readOnlyHint annotations, an agent has enough to call and interpret the result, though return formatting and units remain unspecified.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to retrieve the account summary.

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 (shows/displays) and enumerates the exact resource content: remaining points, today's trial uses, daily key quota, and data-sharing consent status. No sibling tool in the list covers account state, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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 — an agent infers it should call this when it needs the account's quota/consent state. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, though for a zero-parameter read tool the context is fairly self-evident.

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