teramind_get_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a limitation (does not reveal permission tier) and points to README for credential scope details, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'gets account' statement.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core action and scope; the second clarifies limitations. Every phrase adds value.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it states what is returned, what is not included, and a key limitation with a pointer for more details. An agent can decide to call it without further research.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately notes the tool takes no inputs by not adding any, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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?

Defines a specific verb (Get) and resource (authenticated account's own settings) with examples (account name, timezone, currency). Explicitly distinguishes from employee/agent data, which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_agents and get_agent.

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?

Implies usage as a credential sanity check and clarifies what it is not (employee/agent data), guiding the agent away from using it for employee/agent lookups. Does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the contrast provides adequate context for when to use this tool.

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