legalize_account

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'does not count against quota', which is useful for the agent to know. It does not mention response format or side effects, but given the read-only nature and simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys both the action and an important caveat. There is no redundant information or unnecessary detail.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, adds the quota exemption context, and contains no ambiguities. The lack of an output schema means no need to document return values.

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 the empty schema is self-explanatory. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no confusion. No additional parameter semantics 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get account usage/limits info for the current API key'. It specifies the resource (account usage/limits) and scope (current API key), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on legal content like laws and countries.

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 but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives. The phrase 'for the current API key' indicates it is for checking the caller's own account limits, but no examples or when-not-to-use guidance are provided. Since this is a simple, zero-parameter tool, this level of guidance is acceptable.

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