account_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' and the phrase 'authenticated account' imply a read-only operation with no side effects, and the dependency note about organizationId is useful behavioral context. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or mention authentication mechanics, but for a simple zero-parameter read, this is sufficient.

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 with no redundant phrases. The core purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by a valuable usage note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It lists the key return fields, states the tool's ordering role, and distinguishes it from siblings. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but it does clarify what will be returned, which helps set expectations for using the tool.

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 ('Get') and resource ('authenticated Buffer account'), and lists the exact returned data (email, name, timezone, connected organizations and their IDs). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling channel/post/idea tools, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 instructs the agent to 'Call this first' in order to obtain the organizationId required by other tools. This provides a clear, actionable when-to-use rule, even though no alternative tool exists for account info.

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