fofa_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'current' qualifier and specifies the kind of data returned (tier, capabilities, quota), but gives no additional behavioral detail such as authentication requirements or response characteristics; the output schema likely covers return structure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the purpose with no filler. Every word contributes meaningful information about the tool's output scope.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless, read-only account-information tool. The annotations cover safety, the output schema covers return shape, and the description covers the tool's purpose and content domain. Nothing essential 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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter documentation gap for the description to fill. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a well-scoped resource: the current FOFA account tier, API capabilities, and quota information. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search, export, and scheduling tools, as it is the only one focused purely on account status.

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 provides clear context by stating exactly what the tool returns, so an agent can infer when to call it: whenever current account tier, capabilities, or quota details are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the zero-parameter scope and unique purpose make the usage context sufficiently clear.

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