my_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It covers the dependency on API key and the action field, but lacks information on read-only nature, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the key is missing. This is insufficient for a tool dealing with sensitive account data.

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 concise, front-loading the core purpose, and uses clear sectioning with bullet-style lines for parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the two documented sections well and includes handling of special cases (action field). Since an output schema exists, it does not need to detail return values. However, it may be incomplete if there are additional undocumented sections.

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?

With schema coverage at 0% and no enums, the description adds meaning by documenting two possible values for the 'section' parameter ('overview' and 'wallet') and their outputs. However, it does not specify if other values are valid, leaving ambiguity.

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 that the tool returns the user's own GW2 account data using their stored API key, and specifies two sections ('overview' and 'wallet') with details. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'account_info', which may have a similar purpose.

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 mentions that the tool requires a stored API key and provides guidance on handling an 'action' field for key setup/fix. It gives context for when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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