get_account_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It specifies what the tool returns (account status) and explains the optional parameter's behavior. It implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate. Could mention if any side effects exist, but for a status check, it's sufficient.

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 consists of two sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently covers the parameter behavior.

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?

The tool has an output schema (though not shown), so return values need not be elaborated. The description covers the main purpose and the optional parameter. For a simple status-check tool with one parameter, it provides complete guidance.

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 single parameter 'customer_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool's description compensates by stating it is optional and that the backend resolves the account from the API key, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 retrieves current account status and lists specific components (tier, training credits, prediction usage, endpoint limits). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on datasets, models, predictions, etc.

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 explains that customer_id is optional and that the backend resolves from the API key, which is helpful. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any conditions to avoid using it. Given the tool's standalone nature, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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