账号信息

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds concrete detail about the returned fields, which is beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the exact output semantics. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful context regarding what data is returned.

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 a single, short sentence that front-loads the purpose ('query current account basic info and balance') and then enumerates the specific fields with labels. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose and the key return fields. However, it mentions 'basic information' but only details balance fields, leaving some ambiguity about whether other basic info fields exist. Without an output schema, a bit more clarity on the full return set would improve completeness, but the current level is adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds meaning by explaining the returned fields, which is the only semantic content that matters. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description fulfills that by enumerating the output fields, making the tool's behavior predictable without needing parameter documentation.

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 the tool queries the current account's basic information and balance, and enumerates the specific return fields (money, origin_money, give_money). This is a specific verb+resource, and the field list distinguishes it from sibling tools like user_balance, which likely returns a different view. It is immediately clear what this tool does.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as user_balance or user_price. The purpose is clear enough that an agent might infer usage, but there is no direct statement about when this tool is the right choice (e.g., when you need the full balance breakdown vs. a single field). This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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