Netrun account

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature, so the description's job is to add context. It does this by naming the specific data returned (owner, plan, project limit, free time remaining) and advising when to call it. No contradictory or missing behavioral information is apparent for this simple no-parameter tool.

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 only two sentences, with the core output information front-loaded and the usage directive in the second sentence. Every clause adds value with no repetition or filler.

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 no-parameter, read-only, account-info tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool reports, when to call it, and the annotation covers the safety profile. There is no missing information an agent would need to decide to invoke it.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this is fully adequate.

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 lists the tool's function: it reports the configured key owner, current plan, project limit, and remaining free running time. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like netrun_list_projects and netrun_status by focusing on account-level information rather than projects or operational status.

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 'Call it first when the user asks anything about their Netrun account or limits', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the account-focused scope makes the appropriate context unambiguous.

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