account_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the call does not count against the month's usage, which is a quota/rate-limit exemption an agent cannot derive from annotations or schema. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentence that front-loads what is returned and appends the one caveat that matters. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations, and there is no filler.

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 an output schema present, return-field detail need not be restated, and with zero parameters there is no input surface to document. For a simple, safe, no-arg status tool the description is essentially sufficient; only explicit usage framing 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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is empty and fully consistent with a no-argument call, and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 states a specific resource pair: the account's OpsGate plan and its current-month tool-call usage. An agent can tell this is a read-only account introspection tool, distinct from every sibling (file ops, service control, sessions, db_query). It loses a point only because 'OpsGate plan' is mildly jargon-y and the verb is implied rather than stated.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this to check subscription tier or remaining quota, and the parenthetical signals it is a free/cheap call worth making. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives for quota questions.

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