Get Atera account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact – the account is derived from the API key rather than a passed identifier – but discloses nothing about failure modes or whether the key must be valid.

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?

A single twelve-word sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource identity and immediately following with the returned fields. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (company, plan, time zone), which is exactly the missing structured information. It is nearly complete for a trivial read tool; only error behavior on an invalid key is unaddressed.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The mention that the account is implied by the API key correctly signals there is no identifier to supply.

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 phrase 'The Atera account behind the API key' identifies a specific resource and narrows scope to the caller's own account, distinguishing it from sibling lookups like get_customer or get_contact. It is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, relying on the tool name 'get_account' to supply the action, so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'behind the API key' hints that this is the tool for discovering which account the credentials belong to, versus the customer/contact lookups. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no alternatives named, and no note that it takes no identifiers.

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