account_upgrade_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the account is ineligible for upgrades. The security implications of a URL prefilled with an email are not addressed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's action and purpose.

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 is moderately complete. It covers the primary function but omits details like how the URL is obtained (e.g., API call, redirect), prerequisites, and its relationship to the sibling account_billing_portal_link. An AI agent might need more context for proper selection.

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 (100% coverage by default). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds context by specifying the URL's purpose (plan upgrades) and that it's free, which adds meaning 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?

Description states 'Get a dashboard URL prefilled with account email for plan upgrades.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'dashboard URL' are clear, and 'plan upgrades' specifies the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling account_billing_portal_link by focusing on upgrades and noting 'Free.' However, it does not explicitly define which account (the authenticated user's), which leaves minor ambiguity.

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?

Description includes 'Free' as a hint about cost but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like account_billing_portal_link or other upgrade paths. No explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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