invenio_get_account_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; the verb 'Get' implies a read-only, non-mutating call, which is useful. It does not disclose the window these limits apply to (daily/monthly), whether the values are live or cached, or auth requirements — modest gaps for a low-risk status call.

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 front-loaded sentence naming both returned fields with zero filler. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it names the two fields but not their shape (units, reset timing, structure). For a zero-arg tool this is close to sufficient, but an agent still cannot anticipate what the payload looks like.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter context because none exists.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus concrete resources ('account plan and remaining search limits'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name or contrast with any sibling, but the sibling set (search-task and email-risk tools) is clearly disjoint, so confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would infer this is the pre-flight check before creating search tasks, but the description never states that, nor any when-not or prerequisite condition. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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