account_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's main transparency contributions are the aggregation detail (last 100 calls) and the token requirement. It does not discuss rate limits or error handling, but for a simple read operation, this is adequate. No contradictions with 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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds practical details (free, token required). No redundant or irrelevant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what is checked, the aggregation scope, and the token requirement. It does not detail the response format, but for a status check this is acceptable. It lacks any discussion of edge cases or failure modes.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since no parameters exist). According to the guidelines, this baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed, and no additional semantics are required.

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 states the tool's purpose: checking the configured TensorFeed token for current credit balance and recent per-endpoint usage (last 100 calls aggregated). The verb 'Check' and specific resource 'TensorFeed token' make the action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling status tools by focusing on token-specific metrics.

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 a prerequisite ('requires TENSORFEED_TOKEN') and mentions it's free, which helps the agent decide if it can use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative status tools (e.g., get_ai_status), nor does it give cases where it should not be used. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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