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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the call is free ('Gratuit') and credits are specifically for lists, though it does not discuss return format or rate limits.

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 short sentence that front-loads the key returned data. It is slightly repetitive with 'ce e gratuit' followed later by a standalone 'Gratuit.', but remains efficient.

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 account tool with no output schema, the description explains the main return values: plan, remaining credits, followed-company count, and free connection features. It is largely complete, though it could be clearer about the response structure.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate.

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 specific account data returned: plan, remaining monthly credits, followed-company count, and free features on the connected account. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves', but the content clearly distinguishes this account-info tool from the company-focused siblings.

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 by the listed return data; there is no explicit 'use when' guidance or comparison to alternatives. Since no sibling directly duplicates this account-information role, the implied context is adequate but not strong.

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