scrapeer_get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exact returned data (credit balance, subscription plan, cloud runs enabled), which helps the agent know what information it can obtain. It does not go into auth or rate limits, but given the annotations and simple read-only nature, this is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence describing the function, followed by explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE' sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted words 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the expected return values by naming the key fields. It also gives clear use cases and exclusions, making it complete for an agent to decide when to invoke. It could potentially mention the exact response format or whether additional fields exist, but for a simple account info tool, the provided context is sufficient.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously) and there are no required or enum parameters. The description's focus on the tool's purpose and output is appropriate; no parameter details are missing.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'your Scrapeer account info', listing specific fields (credit balance, subscription plan, cloud runs enabled). It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'DO NOT USE: to list flows or runs', which clears any ambiguity.

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 context: 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' for checking credits or account status, and explicit exclusions: 'DO NOT USE: to list flows or runs'. This gives the agent clear decision guidance and differentiates from sibling tools like scrapeer_list_flows or scrapeer_get_run_status.

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