Статус аккаунта

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

No annotations are available, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states the resource and endpoint, with no disclosure of response format, authentication needs, or side effects. For a read-only status tool, minimal behavioral context is provided.

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?

A single, compact sentence that states the resource, scope, and endpoint. No wasted words.

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 status tool, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the resource, key data points (restrictions, company), and endpoint. However, no output schema or return-value details are provided, and a brief mention of usage context would improve completeness.

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, and schema coverage is effectively 100%. With no parameters to document, the description cannot add parameter meaning, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving Timeweb Cloud account status, specifying the scope (restrictions, company) and the endpoint. This distinguishes it from account-related siblings like account_finances, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as account_finances. The description implies usage for checking account status but gives no context or exclusions.

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