angi_get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the authentication requirement (signed-in tab) and the exact data fields returned, which goes beyond the annotation hints.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the key information ('The signed-in Angi user') and then lists the returned fields. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase contributes value.

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 simple, parameterless, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers the essential information: what the tool returns and the authentication prerequisite. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the return contents. There are no missing aspects given the low complexity.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema (empty object) fully covers this. With no parameters to describe, the description appropriately focuses on the return value. Per the rubric, 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 clearly states the tool returns the signed-in Angi user's first name, IDs, unread message count, and open/closed project counts. It uses a specific resource ('the signed-in Angi user') and differentiates from sibling tools like angi_get_pro and angi_search_pros, which focus on pros.

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 on when to use the tool: when needing current user account information. It also notes the prerequisite that the browser tab must be signed in. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude other tools, though the sibling list makes the distinction apparent.

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