simplepractice_get_account

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that a single portal login may cover multiple clients and that clients is always a list, which helps the agent anticipate the return shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core content (practice, client, clients list) and uses an illustrative example to clarify a non-obvious behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with a readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the conceptual return (practice, signed-in client, all visible clients). It lacks explicit output format details, but given the simplicity and existing annotations, it is largely complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema already fully covers parameter documentation (100% coverage). The description has no need to add parameter meaning, and adheres to the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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 practice, the signed-in client, and every client visible to the login, with the specific clarification that clients is always a list. This precise scope distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific operations like session status or sign-in links.

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 explains what the tool returns and clarifies the multi-client nature, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since it's a general 'get account' tool, usage is implied, but no explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings are given.

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