get_account_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves account info, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a getter with no annotations, this lack of explicit behavioral context is a 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does and what it returns. There is no wasted verbiage; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 no output schema, the description partially covers return values by listing fields, but it does not specify the response format, error behavior, or any caveats. With no annotations and a simple getter tool, the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks details about edge cases like non-existent or private accounts, making it only minimally complete for an agent.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds value by listing the output fields (username, followers, posts), which is helpful even though no parameters exist. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 verb 'Lay' (get) and the resource 'thong tin tai khoan Instagram' (Instagram account info), with specific fields listed: username, follower count, post count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_photo or list_media, which focus on posting or media retrieval.

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 implies usage: when you need account info, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but no explicit guidance is given, so it meets the 'implied usage' level.

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