Account state (poll until paid)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the plan state machine (free plus payment block -> pro after operator activation) and implies polling is safe via 'poll'. It does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or token handling, but for a simple GET endpoint the provided context is meaningful.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the exact HTTP endpoint and immediately follows with the key state logic and usage instruction. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: endpoint, expected state transitions, and when to invoke it. It does not specify response fields or error scenarios, but the stated plan values provide enough for basic invocation and interpretation.

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?

There is 1 parameter (account_token) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its purpose, origin, and optionality unexplained. The name hints at meaning, but the absence of any elaboration makes it insufficient.

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 states the tool's function: it GETs the organization account state and reports the plan status ('free' vs 'pro'). The title 'Account state (poll until paid)' further narrows its purpose. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools, but its unique focus on account polling makes it distinguishable.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Poll this after handing over the checkout link.' It also explains the expected state changes while unpaid and after activation, which helps the agent decide when to call it. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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