get_account_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it clarifies that quota.wallet already includes free consumption, freeUsed/freeTotal are not balances, OCR numbers sync with wallet, limits are enforced server-side, and error code 500 is returned when not found.

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?

Though long, every sentence adds critical caveats and correct misconceptions. It flows from purpose to balance semantics, limits, and error handling—front-loaded and well structured.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description thoroughly explains return fields, their meanings, hard limits, a hidden limitation, and failure behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation and interpretation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the refresh param. The description adds no additional param info, but baseline 3 is appropriate per high coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: '查询账户的可用额度、会员档位和各项限额' (query account's available credit, membership tier, and limits). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling translation/document tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: '要报余额、要判断「够不够翻这一单」时用它', and warns against inferring balance from prior order deductions. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., calculate_video_translation_quota) for related cost checks.

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