Get account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by characterizing the call as a full snapshot and detailing which data sections are included, giving the agent a clear picture of what the operation returns without needing an output schema.

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 three compact, purposeful sentences. The first delivers the core function and scope, the second routes to alternatives, and the third confirms the read-only nature. No filler or redundant explanation exists.

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 snapshot tool, the description is fully sufficient. It names the data categories returned, preemptively disambiguates from sibling tools, and aligns with annotations. Even without an output schema, an agent understands what to expect and when to call this tool.

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 parameter semantics are trivially complete and the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 and resource ('Full account snapshot') and enumerates the exact content domains: profile, subscription, quotas, usage, and projects. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_quotas_and_usage and get_account_console_kit, so an agent can correctly identify this tool.

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 provides clear routing guidance: use get_quotas_and_usage for limits only, and get_account_console_kit for rendering a local HTML console. This explicitly tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus the close alternatives.

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