account_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavior beyond that—no auth requirements, rate limits, or freshness/staleness characteristics—and what it does list overlaps with the existing output schema.

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 short sentence with the key content categories front-loaded. No filler, no repetition, and nothing extraneous for a zero-argument tool.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotation set covers safety. Still, it offers nothing about the account context (whose account, what 'server' means, whether it reflects live or cached state), which for a monitoring/inventory tool leaves a small but real gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics could be misread, and the description does not need to explain any.

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?

States a specific resource (account) and enumerates exactly what it surfaces: balance, tariff/plan, resources, and server. It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools that operate on domains, mail, MySQL, and backups by being the only account-wide informational read.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description only names the content returned; an agent must infer that this is the 'any time you need account-level facts' tool.

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