Get account contact details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds context by specifying the exact data fields returned and reiterating the read-only nature, which is helpful beyond the annotations. It does not provide deeper behavioral details like authentication or rate limits, but for a simple getter with no parameters, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource list, and the second sentence provides the alternative tool reference. Every word earns its place, with no redundant specification or padding.

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 getter with no parameters, no output schema, and straightforward sibling set, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns (listed fields), and the read-only behavior. The alternative for changes is also highlighted, making the context complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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, so the schema provides no burden and the baseline is 4. The description implicitly clarifies that the account identity is derived from the caller's context ('your account'), which adds a subtle semantic beyond the empty schema. No further parameter explanations are needed.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: account contact details (first name, last name, phone) and notification preferences (email reminders, service notifications). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool crowntown_update_account by explicitly naming it as the alternative for changes, and from other list tools by focusing on account-level details rather than service history or invoices.

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 explicitly states 'Read-only — use crowntown_update_account to change them,' providing a clear when-to-use and naming the alternative for modifications. This guides the agent to select this tool for viewing account and notification settings without ambiguity.

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