account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It transparently notes that response field names are inconsistent between sample and code examples, and captures both in 'response_summary'. Also clarifies that credits are not applicable. This reveals important behavioral quirks beyond basic functionality.

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 verbose and not front-loaded. It starts with purpose but then dives into detailed notes about documentation inconsistencies, which could be summarized more briefly. Every sentence does not earn its place; extraneous details clutter the message.

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 details return fields (though inconsistently). For a simple status-check tool with zero parameters, it covers essential aspects, but the lengthy digression on documentation conflicts may confuse rather than clarify.

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?

No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details. It instead provides useful information about the response structure, adding value beyond the empty schema.

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 monitors Scrapingdog account usage, specifically remaining API credits and active concurrent connections. This verb+resource combination is unique among sibling tools (primarily scrapers), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, among siblings with different scraping functions, the context strongly implies it's for account status checks. Still, lacking when-not or alternative recommendations.

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