Account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds concrete return content (plan, credits left, biggest upload, AI spend cap, one-time AI consent) and implies key-scoped auth via "this key belongs to", which is value beyond the annotations.

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 that spends its length on the returned fields rather than filler. It is a touch long as a colon-list, but every item listed is meaningful output content.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it does so by enumerating the key fields. Minor gaps remain (format of credits, behavior on missing/invalid key), but it is sufficient for a simple read-only account query.

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 of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate or clarify.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Show") and resource ("the JustClip account this key belongs to"), then enumerates exactly which fields are returned. None of the sibling tools query account-level state, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 — reach for it when plan, credit balance, or AI-consent status is needed — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative. Adequate but not directive.

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