get_account_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' aligns with a read operation, so there is no contradiction. The description adds modest context by revealing the endpoint and example response fields, but it does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, or rate-limit implications.

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 a single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by endpoint and example fields. Every part earns its place; 'etc.' is slightly vague but acceptable in this context.

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-only tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the resource and key fields, while additional return-structure details are already available from the output schema.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds some value by hinting at the response contents (email, tracking status), though this is not strictly required for a zero-parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('account info'), the endpoint ('/me'), and example fields ('email, tracking status'), making the operation unambiguous. It is naturally distinct from sibling tools like get_rate_limit_status or test_connection.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings or when not to use it. The agent must infer intent solely from the name and brief description; no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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