Get account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by disclosing that the response includes a sensitive token and by framing the call as a diagnostic step for delivery failures. It does not state rate limits, token-handling cautions, or whether the token is returned masked, which would be the remaining useful additions for a credential-bearing read.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads the returned payload, the second front-loads the usage scenarios and ends with the sibling routing. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

There is no output schema, so the field enumeration is doing real work in telling the agent what to expect back, and the diagnostic use cases round out the picture. The only shortfall is that the shape of the response (flat vs. nested, units of balance, session-count semantics) is left implicit.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by describing the whole account object as the result.

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 full ChatPush account information") and enumerates exactly what is returned: token, balance, dispatch routing, sender names, subscription status, and session counts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_balance, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives three concrete when-to-use conditions: verifying the token works, checking subscription activity, and diagnosing undelivered messages with a parenthetical example (WhatsApp/Telegram not authorized). It also names the alternative explicitly ("For just the balance use get_balance"), which is a clean routing rule.

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