Get Account Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by naming the concrete returned fields (email, credits, concurrency), which is important because no output schema exists to reveal the response shape.

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 compact sentences: the purpose and returned fields come first, the docs link trails. Every element earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 status tool with full annotation coverage this is close to complete: the agent knows what it does, that it is safe, and what data comes back even without an output schema. Only minor behavioral notes (credits are consumed quota, error behavior when auth is missing) are absent.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get your WebScraping.AI account status') and enumerates exactly what is returned: email, remaining credits, concurrency. This is unmistakably distinct from the scraping-oriented siblings (html, text, serp, data), so no schema opening is needed to disambiguate.

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 implied by the tool's nature but never stated: there is no guidance such as 'call this before batch jobs to verify remaining credits' and no mention of when not to use it. With one obviously non-overlapping sibling set, the implied context is adequate but thin.

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