hebbrix_account_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, making the safe-read nature clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the claim command relay behavior and the consequence ('keeps all memories') in agent mode. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a crucial conditional instruction. Every clause earns its place, and the structure is 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?

For a zero-parameter status tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool reports, when to act on the result, and what the act achieves. The output schema can handle field-level details, so the description doesn't need to repeat them.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything (100% coverage trivially). Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since none exist. It correctly focuses on the output and the conditional action.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it reports 'Tier, usage, limits, and expiry' for the agent's account. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling memory/action tools. The additional instruction about relaying the claim command is a secondary actionable, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool in agent mode: 'relay the claim command to the human when usage status is "warning" or worse.' It gives a concrete condition and subsequent action, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is strong contextual guidance, though not a full when/when-not matrix.

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