check_account

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context by stating the KONTRAGENTPRO_API_KEY requirement and listing the returned account details. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention error behavior or what happens if the key is invalid.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately follows with the required environment variable. Every clause contributes useful information, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 no-input account status tool, the description covers the purpose, the returned data categories, and the authentication requirement. It does not describe the response format or error conditions, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, the remaining gaps are minor.

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 the schema coverage is naturally 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity to compensate for. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds the necessary authentication context.

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 resource (API account tied to the current key) and enumerates the exact information returned: deposit balance, tariff plan, daily quota usage, and key list. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling company lookup tools.

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 intended use is implied by the account-specific content and the authentication requirement, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It also does not name any sibling tool for comparison.

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