get_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the returned fields, which is good, but does not mention that the tool requires authentication, is read-only, or has no side effects. The term 'authenticated user' implies auth, but it's not explicit.

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 consists of two short, focused sentences. The first sentence enumerates the returned fields, and the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words; it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns and when to use it. It does not mention error cases or authentication details, but given the low complexity, it is mostly 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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by listing the fields returned, giving the agent context about what data to expect. This goes beyond the schema and justifies a score above baseline.

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 tool retrieves the authenticated user's profile with specific fields (email, name, country, billing currency, account creation date). It also gives a concrete use case ('what account am I on?'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_billing_state or get_account_limits.

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 explicitly says to use it to confirm identity before cross-account actions or to answer 'what account am I on?'. This provides clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the use case is specific enough to avoid misuse.

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