Account status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds behavioral context by clarifying that owned links are unlimited by count and that the tool reports allowance usage. This helps the agent interpret results and plan around limits.

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 with no filler. The first sentence defines the resource content, the second gives a concrete use case, and the third prevents misuse by pointing to the `links` tool. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 account status tool with no output schema, the description names the relevant data categories: plan, entitlement, storage/transfer/publish allowance usage, and the 'unlimited owned links' caveat. There is no missing guidance an agent would need to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter information the description must supply. The description's mention of plan, entitlements, and allowance usage aligns with what such a no-argument status tool would return, which is sufficient.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only account-level status resource, naming specific data: plan, entitlement, and usage of storage, transfer, and publish allowances. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the `links` tool, which covers link-level details. This lets the agent distinguish it from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 states when to use the tool: to check what the account may do or whether it is near a limit. It also explicitly says to use `links` instead for link-specific details such as labels, URLs, and protection state. This provides clear routing guidance and excludes the main alternative.

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