beliq: Check Account

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

The description discloses the HTTP endpoint (GET /v1/me) and that it draws no quota, adding valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. No contradiction with annotations.

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 provides purpose and result, the second gives implementation detail and usage advice. Every word earns its place 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?

For a zero-parameter smoke test tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, implementation, usage, and what is reported (plan and quota). It is complete for the task.

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 logically does not need to elaborate on parameters. With 100% schema coverage of an empty object, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 verifies the API key and reports plan/quota. It distinguishes from the sibling 'beliq_validate_einvoice' by specifying a different purpose (credential smoke test vs. E-invoice validation).

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 recommends use as a 'connection and credential smoke test'. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the simple nature of the tool and differentiation from the sibling make this adequate.

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