get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the caller actually gets back (identity, plan, key scope, webhook endpoints) and signals low cost, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not describe failure behavior for an invalid key, a notable omission given the key-verification use case.

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?

Three short clauses with zero filler: purpose first, returned content second, and the cheapest-usage hint last. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is 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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the essentials by enumerating the returned fields and giving a primary use case. It leaves the error path (invalid or expired key) implicit, which is the one gap an agent hitting a failure would want addressed.

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?

With zero parameters there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, so the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a no-input call and does not invent parameter language that would confuse the caller.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get the account") and then enumerates what that resource contains: identity, plan, calling key and scope, webhook endpoints. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It stops short of distinguishing itself from nearby siblings such as get_overview or get_account_insights, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 cheapest call to prove a key works" gives a clear, actionable usage context — validating credentials — which is exactly the kind of guidance an agent needs for a zero-argument tool. It does not state when-not to use it or name an alternative for account analytics, which keeps it below a 5.

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