hunter_check_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is free, does not consume credits, and returns specific fields (plan name, monthly quota, requests used, credits remaining). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but given the context, it's implied.

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 concise with two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence is informative, covering purpose, best use case, cost, and output fields with no fluff.

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 simple tool with no input schema and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, its cost, and what the output contains, fully preparing an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema covers everything. The description adds value by explaining the output contents, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the tool returns Hunter.io account info including remaining credits, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('account info'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on enrichment/verification.

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 says 'Best for: checking how many finder and verifier credits remain before running a large enrichment batch,' providing clear guidance on when to use. It does not mention when not to use, but the context is clear given the sibling tools cover other purposes.

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