Account overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: quota enforcement is server-side and failures occur instead of queuing, plus the default-workspace side effect. It stops short of describing return format or freshness.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: contents first, then the call-before-generation guidance, then the default-workspace note. Front-loaded and dense without filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by enumerating the account/plan/quota categories, and it covers the default-workspace behavior. It doesn't specify exact fields or units, but the level of detail is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it.

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 100% and the single optional workspaceId is fully documented in the schema (default from use_workspace, account's first workspace, one-call override). The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource (the signed-in account) and enumerates exactly what it returns: plan, AI Studio credits, reels quotas, automated posts, workspace slots, storage. It also pins a distinct role — naming the default workspace other tools act on — which no sibling claims.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Call this before any generation,' with the reason (limits are server-enforced and exceeding jobs fail rather than queue). It doesn't compare against potentially overlapping siblings like get_dashboard or get_analytics, so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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