lr_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the response content (subscription status, storage usage) and is implicitly a safe, zero-parameter read, but says nothing about authentication requirements, side effects, or freshness of the data. For a low-risk read tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the returned data with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and with zero parameters the invocation surface is trivial. The only missing context is whether authentication is required before calling, which is minor for this tool.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 names the specific resource (account) and the exact information it exposes (subscription status, cloud storage usage), which clearly separates it from siblings like lr_login, lr_get_photo, and lr_list_albums. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieve'), but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as needing to be logged in first (notably, lr_login is a sibling). It only implies usage by virtue of what data it returns.

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