My LuxAlgo account

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world. The description adds value beyond that by specifying that data is scoped to the signed-in user and requires OAuth authentication. It also discloses what categories of data will be returned, giving the agent a clear behavioral model. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the resource and contents, the second supplies use cases, and the third states the authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only account lookup tool, the description is self-sufficient. It tells the agent what fields are available, when to call the tool, and what prerequisite must be satisfied. No output schema exists, but the listed categories give enough shape for the agent to use the result 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the description has nothing to add for parameter invocation. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies. The description instead appropriately focuses on the returned data and usage context.

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 the resource as the signed-in user's LuxAlgo account and enumerates its contents: plan tier, entitlements, and profile basics. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb like 'get' or 'list', but the use-case sentence clarifies that it exposes account information. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, none of which cover account data.

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 concrete trigger conditions: use this tool to tailor answers to what the user's plan allows, or when the user asks what plan they are on. It also states the OAuth prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but no sibling tool covers the same account resource, so the guidance is sufficient.

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