Agent status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the required account:read scope and the fact that the call consumes no credits. It does not describe failure modes (e.g., what an invalid key returns), but the auth and cost disclosures are substantive.

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 tight clauses with no filler: action, auth requirement, cost behavior. The core purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining essentials (scope, credit cost) for a zero-parameter read tool; only failure/error behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema, and it correctly does not invent parameters.

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 the authenticated agent/key status) and even names the endpoint. The resource is distinct from siblings like get_account or get_project, but the description never explicitly distinguishes itself from get_account, which an agent might reasonably consider a near-neighbor.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative sibling is named. The only adjacent signal is 'Does not use credits,' which is a cost property rather than a usage condition, leaving the agent to infer that this is for checking auth/key health.

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