get_account_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses what data is returned (current tier, hourly request usage, locked/unlocked tools, cache state, upgrade options). It implies read-only behavior via 'Check' but does not explicitly state safety characteristics or cache behavior beyond freshness.

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 efficient sentences. First sentence is front-loaded with the action verb and enumerates specific data points returned. Second sentence provides necessary tier constraint. No redundancy with structured fields.

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 status endpoint with no output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing specific response fields and access constraints. Sufficient for agent to understand this retrieves quota/account metadata rather than market data.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters (coverage 100%), establishing baseline 4. Description confirms there are no configuration options required (implicitly, by focusing entirely on return value description and not mentioning required inputs).

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Check' with resource 'Fathom account' and enumerates specific return fields (tier, requests used, tools, cache freshness). It clearly distinguishes from data-focused siblings (get_asset_context, get_correlation_matrix, etc.) by focusing on account metadata and rate limit 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?

Provides tier availability context ('Available on all tiers including free') indicating when the tool is accessible, but lacks explicit guidance contrasting with action-oriented siblings like rotate_api_key or set_alert. Usage is implied by the nature of the return fields listed.

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