account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns current plan and link placement info and mentions upgrade guidance, which implies a read-only informational behavior. It doesn't state whether it mutates anything or whether it requires authentication, but for a zero-parameter account status tool, the description is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the content summary and then the trigger condition. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns and when to call it. It doesn't describe the exact response shape, but that's not required without an output schema. It could mention that it's read-only, but the content summary implies that.

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, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description explains what the tool reports, which is the only relevant semantic content. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.

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 clear purpose: it reports current plan, links placed, and how to upgrade. It also names the trigger conditions ('credits, pricing or limits'), which helps an agent recognize when to call it. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like upgrade, but the resource ('account') and content summary are specific enough.

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 description gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Call it when the user asks about credits, pricing or limits.' This is clear usage guidance. It doesn't mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like upgrade, but the trigger list is actionable and sufficient for a simple zero-parameter tool.

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