get_account_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It specifies exactly what is returned (settlement details, tip jars, totals, invoice list), which discloses the tool's output. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded ('Look up a keyless Shieldz account'), and the output is concisely listed.

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, one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: input source, output contents (structured JSON). No additional information is needed.

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 schema describes the required parameter 'manage_token' as the token from sibling tools. The description reinforces this by referencing the same origin, adding practical context beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 verb 'look up' and the resource 'keyless Shieldz account' by a specific token. It distinguishes from sibling tools (create_payment_link, create_tip_jar) by focusing on retrieval vs. creation.

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 explains the token origin ('returned when you create a payment link or tip jar'), linking to sibling tools. It implies use after creation, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative conditions.

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