get_account_info

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 mentions it's an introspection stub and hosted endpoint only, hinting at no side effects, but does not disclose rate limits, data sensitivity, or any other behavioral traits beyond that.

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 is two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, the second clarifies constraints. It is concise, front-loaded, and includes no redundant information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists the outputs (marketplace scope, connection status, tool availability, next-step guidance). This is adequate for a low-complexity utility tool, though it does not explain how to use the parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. The parameters are optional and described generically in the schema; the description offers no additional context for their use.

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 it returns marketplace scope, connection status, tool availability, and next-step guidance for the active API key. It also distinguishes itself as an introspection stub and hosted endpoint only, contrasting with sibling tools that perform specific actions like create, update, or get performance.

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 frames this as a utility for API key introspection, implying it should be used to understand available tools and scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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