Get Account

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds 'requires authentication' and 'Free' which are behavioral traits not in the annotations, plus details about the return content (active and revoked API keys). This goes beyond the structured 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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and lists all returned fields efficiently. The second sentence adds a practical usage hint. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists all the return data (email, verification status, plan, credit balance, member-since, API keys). It also covers authentication and cost, making it fully self-contained for a read-only account summary. The sibling tools are different domains, so no confusion.

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 provides full coverage (100%). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't—it focuses on what the tool returns. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description doesn't detract from that.

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 'Returns your BizVerify account summary' and enumerates specific fields (email, verification status, plan, credit balance, member-since date, API keys). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_entity or get_config, which target other data.

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 ('check your remaining credit balance before running paid verifications') and notes it is free and read-only. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is unambiguous for the primary use case.

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