fofa_account_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one behavioral trait — the response avoids exposing API keys — but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or whether the call itself consumes quota. The safety disclosure is real but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences: purpose first, then triggers, then the discouraging condition. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 described, and the usage gating is thorough. The only real hole is the two undocumented parameters, which nothing in the description or schema clarifies.

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 0% and the description never mentions task_id or request_id, which default to 'default' and ''. An agent has no guidance on what these identifiers should contain or when to override the defaults, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Get account quota information'), which is clearly distinct from the search/host/stats siblings. It does not explicitly say how it differs from fofa_stats or fofa_health, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 gives explicit positive triggers (user requests quota status, before a deliberately large task, after a quota error) and an explicit negative ('Do not call before every ordinary search'). This is a textbook when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement with no inference required.

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