get_account

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: it never spends a credit. It also makes clear that it returns data, implying a read-only operation. While it does not discuss authentication, errors, or rate limits, the absence of annotations makes this a reasonable level of transparency for the described functionality.

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 two short sentences that directly state the purpose and the key side-effect. There is no redundant or extraneous content, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a simple, parameterless tool. It explains what data is returned and confirms that no credit is consumed. Given the simplicity and lack of output schema, nothing important is missing.

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 no parameters, so the schema is empty. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the coverage is technically 100%. The description adds no unnecessary parameter-related information, which 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 returns API and web credit balances, plan, and usage for the current UTC month. It also explicitly notes it never spends a credit, which distinguishes its read-only nature. This is specific and unambiguous, and it differentiates from the unrelated sibling erase_text.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when needing balance, plan, or usage information) and explicitly states that it does not spend credits, which is a key when-not. However, it does not mention any alternative tools or provide explicit comparison to siblings, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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