Get account status

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the backend resolves the account from the API key when customer_id is empty, but stops short of explaining caching, freshness, or auth requirements. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 enumerates what the status returns, the second clarifies the optional parameter. Nothing is wasted and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a single-optional-param read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers what the agent needs. It could more explicitly route against sibling status tools, but it is otherwise complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining that customer_id is optional and that the backend falls back to the API-key-resolved account — meaning the empty default is a valid, meaningful value rather than a missing field. This is genuinely more than the bare schema conveys.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get current account status') and enumerates exactly what the status contains (tier, credits, usage, limits). This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like get_upload_status and get_training_status, which return different resources.

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 note that customer_id is optional and resolves from the API key gives implicit usage context, but the description never states when to call this tool vs alternatives like get_model_report or get_started. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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