Account Status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: it takes no input, and it reports account usage rather than request progress. It does not discuss auth/prerequisite requirements, which is a minor gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by usage and scope clarification. The enumerated field list partially duplicates the output schema, but it is compact enough to earn its place as a quick orientation.

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 return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes them alongside usage intent and input expectations. For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with rich annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'It takes no input', which matches the empty input schema and removes any doubt about required arguments.

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?

States a specific verb (Returns) and resource (the connected MrScraper account's identity, subscription, token quota and rate limit), and enumerates the concrete data points returned. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from request-progress lookups, so an agent can tell what this tool is and is not.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use signal: 'check the account and remaining quota, for example before a large batch of requests'. It clarifies the negative case ('not the progress of a request'). No alternative tool is named, but the siblings (scraperAPI, webSearch) are unrelated operations, so there is no meaningful alternative to route to.

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