getAccountInfo

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

Annotations already cover read-only behavior and open-world responses. The description adds useful scope by naming UTA status, DCP status, and margin mode, but it does not add operational details such as response shape or authentication expectations. No contradiction with readOnlyHint.

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 with a clear verb and concrete targets. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 query with an open-world annotation, the description captures the essential scope. The phrase 'other configuration info' is somewhat vague, but the openWorldHint reduces the risk of an agent expecting a rigid response envelope.

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 and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and mentioning 'other configuration info' appropriately signals an unparameterized query.

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?

Description states a specific action (Query) on a clear resource (account configuration) and names concrete fields such as margin mode, UTA status, and DCP status. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like getDcpInfo or getUserSettingConfig, so full differentiation is missing.

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 implies the appropriate use case: retrieving account configuration information. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools might be better suited for narrower queries like DCP status or margin mode.

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