cwp_account_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get detailed information' but does not clarify whether it requires admin privileges, what fields are returned, whether missing accounts produce errors, or any rate/scope limits. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized for the operation's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool is a simple read with one required parameter and full schema description, the definition is minimally viable. However, without any annotations and with multiple similar sibling reads, it lacks the distinguishing context an agent needs to select it confidently over cwp_account_list or cwp_account_metadata.

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 100%, and the single username parameter is well-documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond the schema but does not need to.

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?

It states a specific verb (Get) and resource (CWP account information), which is clear on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling tools like cwp_account_list or cwp_account_metadata, leaving ambiguity about how it differs.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling context.

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