status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the data fields the tool surfaces but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. The phrase 'overview' implies non-destructive behavior, but it is not explicitly disclosed.

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, well-structured sentence fragment that front-loads the core concept ('Full account overview') and then enumerates key fields with an em dash. It is concise, has no filler, and every element contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the key return categories (registration status, KYC, payout method, contracts, earnings), giving a reasonable sense of the response. However, it does not mention potential dependencies like prior registration, error behaviors, or what happens if the user_id is invalid, leaving some gaps.

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 covers the single parameter user_id with a clear description ('Freeplay user UUID'), yielding 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but since the schema is sufficient, the baseline score of 3 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 identifies the tool's resource (account status) and scope (registration, KYC, payout method, contracts, earnings), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like my_contracts or check_progress. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'provides,' relying on the noun phrase 'full account overview' to imply the action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like my_contracts or check_progress. It does not state explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exceptions, leaving the agent to infer when a full account overview is needed.

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