nt_account_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the nature of the tool (information retrieval, not mutation), the included fields, and a notable default behavior when accountId is omitted (uses the first account). However, it does not mention potential errors, read-only guarantees, or connection requirements, which would strengthen transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It includes parenthetical examples of the returned data without unnecessary verbosity, earning 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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter), the description is sufficient for basic understanding. It explains the input default and the type of output, but the absence of an output schema and any mention of error handling leaves small gaps. Still, for a simple info-retrieval tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema covers 100% of parameter semantics, providing the parameter name, type, example, and omit behavior. The description does not add meaningful parameter details beyond referring to 'a specific account', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details for a specific account', listing key data categories (name, connection, P&L, buying power). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nt_accounts (likely listing accounts) and nt_account_balance (focused on balance).

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 establishes clear usage context: to retrieve comprehensive information about a single account. It implies this tool is for specific-account lookups, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools such as nt_accounts or nt_account_balance, so no exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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