Get 2DAI account status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds context about what information the tool reveals (available credit, tier, key label, scopes, spend cap) and the recommended timing, which helps set expectations. It does not contradict the annotations and adds meaningful usage context.

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 two sentences, concisely front-loaded with the action and output details, followed by a practical usage instruction. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant or filler 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It enumerates the exact output fields, explains why the tool matters, and specifies when to call it. The sibling tools are not relevant because the purpose is clearly unique.

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 the schema is complete by definition. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description's list of outputs helps the agent understand what 'account' entails, though that is output semantics rather than parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and names the resource 'connected 2DAI account', listing the specific data fields (credit, tier, key label, scopes, spend cap). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wallet_status or get_token_price, which focus on wallet/price rather than account and API key details.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this before proposing generations to check there is enough credit and the right scopes.' This provides clear context and rationale, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would make it a 5.

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