Get Account Usage

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, yet the description adds substantial value beyond them: it discloses the response shape, the permission-dependent nulling of the `limits` field for non-owner contacts, and the delegated-token authorization behavior. This is real behavioral context not derivable from the structured hints.

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 core purpose and response contents are front-loaded efficiently in the first two sentences. The permissions block is somewhat boilerplate-heavy ('any scope allowed'), but it is clearly delimited and does not obscure the primary intent.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (plan tier, upload eligibility, billing links, usage/limit details) and the visibility caveat. For a single read-only parameter tool this is nearly complete; only the null-vs-value contract for non-owner callers could be stated more explicitly.

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 as selecting local credentials rather than a remote ID. The description adds only the vague phrase 'current account' and no further syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieves plan, usage, and limit information for the current account') and enumerates the concrete data involved (plan tier, upload eligibility, billing links, media counts, storage, seats, bandwidth). However, it never distinguishes itself from adjacent account-level siblings like get_account, get_account_stats, or get_credit_balance.

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 implies usage context through the permission requirements and the owner/manager visibility note, and states the required token scopes. But it never says when to reach for this tool versus get_account or get_account_stats, so the agent must infer the selection.

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