get_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 the tool is a read-only status check (showing credits and payment eligibility), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether the tool requires authentication, whether it reflects real-time or cached data, or what happens if the account has no credits. These are minor gaps for a simple status tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 status tool, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what information it provides. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit authentication or error behavior, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable.

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 schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns (remaining credits and Pro/Ultra payment eligibility), which is valuable context beyond the empty schema. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: showing remaining credits and whether Pro/Ultra can be paid with non-trial credits. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('remaining credits'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_generation_options or get_task by focusing on account/credit status.

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 implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs to check remaining credits or payment eligibility for Pro/Ultra. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools are about generation, upload, and task status, not account credits.

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