Get account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, but it discloses nothing about the auth mechanisms hinted at by the clientKey/applicationKey params, what details are returned, or how failures (invalid panel/key) manifest.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than elegant economy.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and the description never indicates what account fields come back or what the panel/baseUrl/clientKey overrides do to the result. For a read-details tool whose return value matters, this leaves a moderate gap.

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?

All four parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), including the panel vs. inline-override distinction, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at this coverage but not additive.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (authenticated user's account details), which is clear and distinct from mutating siblings like account_update_email. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from account_activity or account_2fa_get, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: needing the current account's profile. There is no stated when-not, no mention of alternatives like account_activity or account_2fa_get, and no prerequisites beyond the phrase 'authenticated user's'.

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