account_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real context beyond them by noting the anonymous/free-overlay tier needs no sign-in and that sign-in instructions are returned when needed. It stops short of describing the full response shape, but the tier nuance is genuinely additive.

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 short sentences with the core capability front-loaded and zero filler. Each sentence carries distinct information: what is checked, an exemption case, and the fallback output.

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 parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome (signed-in / Pro status plus sign-in instructions). It could be slightly more explicit about what a negative result looks like, but nothing critical to invoking it 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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly consumes no space on nonexistent inputs.

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 states a specific verb+resource: checking sign-in state and Pro-access validity for Modisign. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like login or get_overlay, though it does not name any sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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 useful context that anonymous free overlays work without signing in, which implicitly tells the agent when this check is unnecessary. However, it never states when to call it (e.g. before an authenticated operation) nor routes the agent to the login sibling when sign-in is missing.

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