Get Billing Status

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

The idempotentHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the key behavioral traits, and the description does not contradict them. It adds little beyond 'current' indicating live data, but no additional behavioral context such as caching, rate limits, or side effects is disclosed.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. Every word adds semantic value and the key output fields are 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?

With zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering idempotency/open-world behavior, the description is fully adequate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 is 100% covered, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Description cannot add value here beyond the schema, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource and fields: current plan, subscription status, and remaining credits. This clearly distinguishes it from billing siblings that create checkouts, portal links, or manage auto-recharge.

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 usage is implied by what the tool returns: an agent needing plan, subscription status, or remaining credits would naturally select this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like manage_auto_recharge or create_subscription_checkout.

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