amber_get_account_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it declares read-only status ('Does not modify any account state'), not rate-limited, and explains null memory counts after cancellation and deletion scheduling implications.

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 (6 sentences) and well-structured: purpose, usage guidance, behavioral details, and safety note. Every sentence adds valuable information without redundancy.

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 fully covers purpose, usage, behavioral side effects, and safety, leaving no gaps for an agent to misunderstand.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter descriptions are needed. The description adds no param info, but baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 explicitly states 'Return the authenticated user's account summary' and lists specific data fields (subscription state, next billing date, memory counts, account creation date), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage subscriptions or memories.

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?

It tells exactly when to use the tool ('when the user asks about their account, subscription status, or how many memories they have') and provides context on post-cancellation behavior, referencing the alternative action amber_cancel_account_deletion for deletion scheduling.

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