get_account_info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context about what the account info contains, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response formatting. The description is consistent with the annotations and adds modest value beyond them.

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 one short sentence that leads with the action and resource, then parenthetically specifies the key return items. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of the tool name or schema and no 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only account-info retrieval tool, this description is fully sufficient. It names the tool's purpose and the main contents of the result, and the annotations cover the read-only and open-world behavior. No additional context is required for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the parameter surface. With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it instead clarifies what the returned account information covers.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the exact resource ('your Enrow account info'), and enumerates the scope ('credit balance and registered webhooks'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which all deal with email/phone lookups and verification rather than account-level 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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need account-level information such as credit balance or registered webhooks. Since there are no sibling tools that serve the same account-info purpose and the tool takes zero parameters, explicit exclusionary guidance is less critical. It does not explicitly name when not to use it, but the intent is unambiguous.

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