Account usage

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavior beyond that by indicating it provides an interactive visual view and enumerates what usage dimensions are shown. It does not contradict any annotation, and the additional detail is relevant for setting agent expectations.

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 concise sentences: the first states what the tool does and what it shows, and the second gives the usage trigger. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With no parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description provides everything needed for an agent to select and invoke this simple tool. It clearly defines scope, content, and the visual nature of the result.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, no additional parameter meaning is 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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('current account usage'), and lists concrete contents: daily/monthly post counts, channel counts, and media storage. It also signals a visual/interactive presentation, which distinguishes it from the nearby get_quota_usage sibling.

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 explicitly says to use it 'when the user wants a visual view of their plan usage,' giving clear context. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, such as when raw quota data might be preferred over a visual view, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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