Read your buyer account

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description still adds substantive context: keys are masked to a 12-char prefix post-issuance and never returned in plaintext, and the call requires OPEDD_BUYER_JWT with a stated rationale ('a key must never mint keys'). That auth constraint and data-masking behavior are not derivable from the annotations or the empty 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?

Front-loads the core action and return payload in the first sentence, with use cases and auth constraints following in a logical order. It is on the long side and the three parenthetical use-case quotes are somewhat decorative, but every clause carries differentiating information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields (enterprise_buyers row with contact_email, buyer_org, created_at) and the shape of the key list (masked 12-char prefixes). Combined with the auth requirement, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax the description needs to compensate for. The schema coverage signal is 100% on an empty object, so nothing is left undocumented.

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 and resource ('Fetch the authenticated buyer's account profile + masked API key list') and even names the underlying endpoint GET /buyer-account. This clearly separates it from sibling read tools like verify_license or list_licence_orders, which concern licenses rather than the buyer's own account and key inventory.

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?

Gives three concrete trigger scenarios (post-signup verification, dashboard mental model, audit prep before rotation) and explicitly routes the agent elsewhere ('buyer portal at opedd.com/buyer') for mid-lifecycle license details such as filter_rules, billing, and payouts. The only gap is that it doesn't disambiguate against sibling MCP tools that might also surface buyer/license data.

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