get_account_info

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

The description discloses that this is a live, authenticated read, which conveys freshness and implies a non-mutating operation—useful since no annotations are present. However, it does not address auth permissions, error behavior, or how the optional parameter affects the read.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no filler and no redundant restatement. The field list is front-loaded, and the live-read qualifier adds useful behavioral context without bloating the description.

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 one-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description lists the returned fields and states the read is live and authenticated, covering the basic default call. It is incomplete regarding customer_id semantics, return formatting, and error behavior, so it is only minimally complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions customer_id, so it adds no meaning beyond the property title and default null. The relationship between the optional customer_id and the authenticated account is left completely unexplained.

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 identifies the resource ('Account identity') and enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose understandable. It is implicitly distinct from sibling tools like list_accounts or performance reports, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'gets' or 'returns'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_accounts, run_gaql, or the performance tools. It names no alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria; 'live authenticated read' provides context but not usage direction.

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