Get Account Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description isn't burdened with safety. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: what data is returned (plan tier, usage, remaining quota, reset date) and that it 'Works on every plan including free.' This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior and error-handling utility.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. Every sentence provides distinct value: one defines the tool's purpose, the other specifies when to invoke it. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 simple no-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It identifies the main return fields, provides concrete use cases, and notes universal availability. The lack of an output schema is adequately compensated by the detailed enumeration of what the tool returns.

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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds meaning about the return content but doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description complements the empty schema by clarifying the tool's output focus.

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 explicitly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current API account's plan tier, request usage, remaining quota, and reset date.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the data-retrieval siblings (e.g., opa_get_price, opa_get_diesel_by_state), which focus on market data rather than account status.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use before calling gated tools, when the user asks about their plan/limits/usage, or after any 402/403/429 to explain what the current plan covers.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and a rationale, making the tool's role in workflow obvious.

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