get_me

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains this is a read-only introspection call, enumerates what it returns, and notes that limits are plan-dependent. It does not explicitly state side-effect-freedom, but the 'READ' framing and account-inspection purpose make that clear.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides a critical warning, and then lists concrete decision points for when to call. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description still tells the agent what fields to expect, why plan discrepancies matter, and how to use this tool to answer common questions. It is fully adequate for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 the input schema already fully covers this with 100% coverage. The description therefore has no parameter semantics to add, and the baseline of 4 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 this tool reports identity and plan information: 'Who this key publishes as, and what its plan actually allows: plan, signed-in email, pages held, lifetime publishes spent, and a limits object.' This is specific and distinguishes get_me from sibling tools that manage sites, publishing, or client spaces.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call before promising a permanent link, before promising a passcode or email gate, after a 402 or 429, and to diagnose missing pages. It also warns not to quote limits from other tool descriptions, which prevents a common mistake.

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