angi_get_account

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint the annotations do not convey: authentication depends on the browser tab being signed in. It does not say what happens when the tab is not signed in (error vs. empty result), which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the most useful information (what is returned) and ending with the operational precondition. The first clause is a noun fragment rather than a sentence, and the field enumeration is slightly list-like, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so by enumerating first name, email, user/entity ids, unread message count, and open/closed project counts. Combined with the stated auth prerequisite, an agent has enough to call and interpret the result; only error behavior and response shape details are 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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It instead spends its words on return content, which is appropriate for a parameterless call.

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 names a concrete resource (the signed-in Angi user) and enumerates exactly which fields it yields, so an agent immediately knows this retrieves the current account profile. It lacks an explicit verb ("retrieves/returns") and never differentiates itself by name from siblings like angi_list_my_projects, but no sibling covers account identity, so the purpose is nonetheless unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied by the field list plus the prerequisite "Requires the browser tab to be signed in," which tells the agent the calling context. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to an alternative for cases where the tab is not authenticated, so guidance is adequate but thin.

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