Calibrd account status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating what the status includes (days left, reports left, mock rounds, included features), giving the agent a concrete idea of the tool's informational behavior beyond the structured fields.

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 tight sentences: the first fronts the resource and data content, the second gives when-to-call guidance, including a sample user query and a prerequisite action. Every clause earns its place and nothing extraneous is included.

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, zero-parameter, read-only status tool without an output schema, the description is complete. It names the fields an agent can expect, gives multiple natural-language triggers, and supplies an ordering constraint ('before suggesting a pass'), so an agent can select and invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the full parameter story. The description appropriately treats the tool as a no-argument status lookup, which is consistent with the empty parameter list. Nothing more is needed.

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 identifies a specific resource (the person's Calibrd account) and defines the kind of information returned: free/pass status, days left, reports left today, mock interview rounds left, and included features. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calibrd_get_pass, which would handle obtaining a pass rather than reporting account 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?

The description gives explicit triggers: any question about the Calibrd account, plan, pass, reports, mock rounds, or 'what do I have on Calibrd', plus the instruction to call it before suggesting a pass. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the usage context is very clear.

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