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

The read-only, non-destructive annotations already establish the safety profile, and the description adds useful context about credit consumption rules—builds and edits consume credits while data, domain, and preview tools do not. This is valuable behavioral guidance beyond the structured annotations, though it does not discuss permissions or freshness of account 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful. The first sentence lists the exact user intents, and the second adds a useful credit-consumption distinction without wasting space.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. For a parameterless, read-only lookup, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool retrieves and when to use it, and the annotations cover safety.

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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter details, and the empty input schema is fully consistent with a parameterless account lookup.

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 the exact resource—the connected WebTwizz account—and enumerates the specific pieces of information it returns: account identity, plan, remaining credits, and workspaces. This is a concrete verb-plus-resource statement that an agent can match directly to user questions about account status.

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 clear triggering conditions: use when the user asks which account is connected, which plan it is on, how many credits remain, or which workspaces exist. It also distinguishes credit-consuming build/edit operations from non-credit data, domain, and preview tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives.

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