account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication context (configured API key), the read-only nature implied by 'status', and useful invocation triggers, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, side-effect profile, or any rate-limit behavior.

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 English portion is two efficient sentences with the core status and usage trigger front-loaded. The appended Russian translation duplicates the same content and adds token overhead without new semantic value for an agent.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned (tier, remaining quota, reset time), gives tier examples, and states when to call it. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to document absent parameters and instead focuses on return fields and usage conditions.

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 names the exact resource (ScanBase account status) and the key returned fields: tier, remaining scan quota, and reset time. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling scan tools, which operate on scans and checks rather than account state.

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?

It gives explicit usage conditions: call before large scan batches or when a scan fails with a quota error. This is strong when-to-use guidance, though it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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