Get Pro subscription status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations by disclosing a concrete rate limit (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop) and the shape of what is returned.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words, but the rate-limit note is front-loaded ahead of the purpose statement, which is slightly awkward ordering. Still compact and easy to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully names the returned content (status, plan, usage against limits). Combined with the rate-limit disclosure and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the return format is only loosely described.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'account' parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the account label semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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 and resource: it returns the current Fourthwall Pro platform subscription status, plan, and usage against plan limits. No sibling tool covers subscription state, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement (call it to check Pro subscription state); there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. For a simple status-read tool this is minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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