account_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does convey that this is a read of key-scoped account data and what fields come back. It does not state that it is side-effect free, what happens with an expired or unentitled key, or whether values are cached/stale — meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool, but the entitlement contents are a genuine addition.

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?

One sentence, colon-front-loaded with the resource first and the three returned data points after. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must enumerate return values and it does so concretely (minutes remaining, reset date, agent-captioning flag). What remains unstated — error behavior for bad keys and whether reads are free — is minor for a zero-parameter status tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies the API key is the implicit input rather than a parameter. Nothing further is needed on this dimension.

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?

States the exact resource (Cuecaps plan tied to the API key) and enumerates what it exposes: remaining cloud minutes, reset date, and agent-captioning entitlement. This is unmistakably a billing/entitlement lookup and cannot be confused with caption_video, transcribe, or list_styles. It stops short of 5 only because there is no explicit verb phrasing (e.g. 'retrieve').

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it should call this before burning minutes or to check plan entitlement, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or what to do if the key is invalid. No alternatives are named, though the sibling set makes the boundary fairly obvious.

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